January 6 Is Exactly What the Fourteenth Amendment Was Talking About | And ignoring its clear dictate is a dangerous choice to make.
January 6 Is Exactly What the Fourteenth Amendment Was Talking About | And ignoring its clear dictate is a dangerous choice to make.
And ignoring its clear dictate is a dangerous choice to make.
As the Colorado Supreme Court wrote, January 6 meets the bar for insurrection “under any viable definition” of the term. The legal scholar Mark Graber, who has closely studied the Fourteenth Amendment’s history, argues that “insurrection” should be understood broadly—an act of organized resistance to government authority motivated by a “public purpose.” That certainly describes the Capitol riot, in which a violent mob attacked law enforcement and threatened members of Congress and the vice president in order to block the rightful counting of the electoral vote and illegally secure the victory of the losing candidate. The historical record also suggests that the amendment’s requirement that a prospective officeholder must have “engaged in insurrection” should also be understood broadly—meaning that Trump’s speech on the Ellipse that morning and his encouragement of the rioters while they smashed their way through the Capitol more than fit the bill.
You're viewing a single thread.
who are they writing this for? is anyone going to change their mind on this? there’s overwhelming evidence that trump is guilty, and there are already so many other arguments have been made that support the conclusion of this article.
even if people change their mind on this, the supreme court doesn’t have to listen to public opinion, and i highly doubt they’re going to change their minds on this.
there seems to be this idea going around that we can solve fascism by simply debating it hard enough. that will not work. these people are already convinced, and a lengthy article won’t change that.
None of that, however, means that we shouldn't be talking about it. The exchange of ideas, thoughts and opinions is important in and of itself.
The Atlantic caters to the wealthy and powerful, so they're likely trying to shape elite opinion with the potential to influence the Supreme Court.
it would be nice if it had that effect, but it’s been 3 years since jan 6 and much has been said in that time (by the atlantic and others). january 6 has been such a central point of american politics for so many years, and it’s been such a polarizing thing that i doubt there are many people left who are still on the fence about it.
i think this article is way more effective at reinforcing the idea that we can debate our way out of january 6th, than it is at actually debating our way out of january 6th.
Camp maga is currently pushing revisionist history HARD (friendly protests, it was Antifa, that kind of nonsense).. so it's important to keep the truth in the publics eye.
i’m not convinced by this either. at the center of current american politics, there are fundamental disagreements about what “the truth” is, and how to know what “is true”. this is what’s behind trumps “fake news” and his revisionist history. it’s not the case that the public is unanimously interested in knowing what’s true, or that they believe the atlantic will tell them the truth.
again, this article is dancing around the core problems in current american politics. i don’t think these problems can be solved by simply presenting new information or trying to debate the other side.
there is still value in spreading this information, but it should come with an acknowledgement of the deeper underlying problems.
True. I find the subjectivation of the truth scary. There is always wiggle room around the edges but fundamentally there should be a shared perception. And if "peacefully protesters" is any indication.
But then history is full of these examples, where governments just deny and revise history to avoid ugly truths. Maybe this will go in the ledger of the US (next to the states right not slavery narrative).
I believe you're falling into the trap of believing that the only the most vocal people on the Internet are the only opinions that exist. There are tons of people who switch who they vote for every election, or chose to vote or not, which is usually what swings elections one way or another.
You won't convince the trump cultists who have abandoned reality in favor of their cult leader, but there are people who are on the fringe or fence who can be convinced and this is for them.
Yes some people are going to change their mind because most Americans aren’t paying close attention. You say “these people are already convinced”. This is just black and white thinking. Some are convinced, but many don’t feel informed enough to have strong opinions.
The lesson from the Dobbs decision is that, sure SCOTUS can ignore public opinion, but it matters when they do. After that decision, voters, including many independents and even conservatives, revolted, leading to many surprising victories for Democrats.
I’m honestly puzzled by your comment. Is this a call to stop spreading anti-fascist ideas? To stop making arguments and spreading concern? Why? Your theory seems to be that talking about ideas doesn’t matter. Fascists, on the other hand, keenly understand the power of ideas!
It’s to help the reader articulate why Jan 6 was an insurrection.
And your personal contribution is what, exactly? Whinging?