ajax18 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 4:44 pm
Insurrection was a defined word in the 1800s and is a defined term today. In neither case is insurrection defined as a "threat to democracy."
Now we're getting into the legal universe. As my property law professor used to say, "Words have no meaning when it comes to law." What is the definition of insurrection and who gets to decide if someone is guilty of insurrection? Why couldn't Ron DeSantis say that Kamala Harris was guilty of aiding and abetting insurrection by bailing violent BLM vandals out of jail and therefore subject to removal from the ballot according to this precedent? That's certainly inciting and encouraging an insurrection. The BLM riots based on the George Floyd lie destroyed way more federal property and killed way more people than the January 6 protests.
LOL, silly. Of course we're in the legal universe. The Constitution is the bedrock of our legal universe, and the issue is how an amendment to the Constitution applies to a specific person running for our constitutionally established office of the President. What universe did you think we were in? Steven Universe?
I sincerely doubt that you understand that snippet you recall from your property law class, unless you have decided to join the Frankfurt School and those radical critical race theory professors. It is trivially true that the series of marks on paper (or a screen) or the sounds we string together have no meaning -- at least until we give it to them. The common meaning given to words is recorded in dictionaries, which are updated to reflect changes in how people use words.
In law, words are generally given their common meanings unless specifically defined in a law or contract. In our legal system, ultimate decisions about the meaning of words is made by judges.
In the case of the 14th amendment, a constitutional originalist would look at the common understanding of the word at the time the amendment was ratified, discussion of what constituted an insurrection by the Congress that enacted the amendment, and any cases applying the amendment to disqualify folks from holding office. Others would take into consideration how the word is used today, how it has been defined in different contexts over time, and subsequent cases that defined or applied the term.
Ron DeSantis is a state governor. He is certainly able to make any silly argument he wants, just like you are able to do so. But, in our legal system, he doesn't get to define the words in the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court just held that states have no role in deciding whether the 14th Amendment bars a candidate from federal office, so Ron DeSantis doesn't get to decide.
Here's what the 14th Amendment says:
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Kamala Harris certainly has not engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution. The rioters you refer to may have been rebelling against the police, but the local police are not the U.S. Constitution. The 14th amendment says nothing about the amount of property damage. The definitions of rebellion and insurrection say nothing about the amount of property damage. I've seen zero evidence that the rioters were rebelling against the U.S. Constitution.
If we just apply the holding of yesterday's Supreme Court decision, and not the clear
obiter dictum in the majority opinion, DeSantis would have to sue Harris and whoever in Florida is the legal authority for deciding which candidates qualify for ballots in federal court. The federal court would hold a trial on the issue of whether the rioters had engaged insurrection or rebellion against the U.S. Constitution and whether whatever you say Harris did qualifies as aid and comfort to the rioters. Because the definition of terms is a legal issue under our legal system, the judge would decide the meanings of the relevant terms. The finder of fact would decide whether whatever Harris did factually falls within the amendment, based on definitions stated in the jury instructions approved by the judge. Any decision would be reviewable by the U.S. Court of Appeals and, ultimately, the Supreme Court (if it so chose). At every level of the system, the meanings of words would be decided by judges. That's how our system works. I'm surprised that you didn't retain this basic fact about our legal system from your property law class.
If we apply the
obiter dictum in yesterday's majority opinion, DeSantis would have to find an existing federal law that provides a basis for determining whether someone engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution. There is a statute that defines insurrection as a federal crime, so that might work. But, that would require a federal prosecutor to persuade a grand jury to indict Harris under the statute. DeSantis is not a federal prosecutor and has no control over federal prosecutors. The prosecutor would be subject to the criminal law burden of proof -- beyond reasonable doubt. The jurors would decide whether Harris was guilty beyond reasonable doubt, based on the jury instructions given by the judge (including definitions of terms). And, again, a conviction would be subject to an appeal to the Court of Appeals and review by the Supreme Court.
So, the answer to your question "who gets to decide" is simple. Ultimately, it's judges. Practically speaking, it's legislatures in laws, parties in contracts, and all of us in terms of ordinary meaning.
When it comes to Trump, what's interesting is that the trial court in Colorado found by "clear and convincing" evidence that Trump "engaged in insurrection." The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed that part of the trial court's holding. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, did not overrule on that basis. So, the Supreme Court let stand the factual finding that Trump engaged in insurrection. Apparently, there weren't five Justices willing to state that Trump had not engaged in insurrection.