So I see the 6th Jan as a matter of public order, just like parents might protest an Educ Ctte decision on sex education by marching on the school. So long as it's peaceful, ok; otherwise disturbance of the peace. The parents are not challenging the existence of the school, they are challenging what this instance of its existence is trying to do. Otherwise the committee could do all kinds of weird stuff and the parents would have no recourse.
Imagine if a school organises a day where children must come dressed as a member of the opposite sex. Imagine that. And one of the parents organises the protests and gets 21 years in prison.
The 14th amendment as far as I can understand was designed by the Unionists to manage Confederate resistance.
I don't want to be picky, but the 14th does say "and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States". Shall be. It isn't talking about running for office, it's talking about someone already in the office of the president. Running for office, it requires the candidate be a citizen of a certain age, nothing else. A candidate can even run a campaign from a prison cell.
Basically, before thinking about the specifics of whether I am pro or anti Trump, I would leave the elections process well alone and let the people decide who they want to be their next president. If the possibility to challenge an election result is banned, then think about the powers an administration, "the swamp", would now have to ban any candidate it doesn't approve; and that could include your being excluded when it is your adversary's turn in office.
Democracy is about alternance in office. The incumbent must recognise the other party as legitimate. If an adversary can't challenge a result then we'd just have another autocracy, ie we'd wind up with one-party rule by a government with an exclusive monopoly on the truth.
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Keep it clean, keep it lean