Congress pass a law banning Insurrectionists?

[Ziggurat]

Unfortunately, if Trump gets elected there will be series of constitutional crises until he dies or terms out.

Why would you expect that? We didn't get constitutional crises during his first term.

Given his history, they will probably end without actual violence on account of him generally lacking the......where-with-all to actually stick with something once there's any push back.

Indeed, this is one of multiple reasons the idea is ridiculous. Trump isn't a deep planner.

I also expect that if terms out he won't fight it again as he can assuage his ego with knowledge that he can't run rather than have to deal with losing.

Well, yes. Such an attempt would fail, I think Trump knows it would fail, and winning a second term is enough.

 

[Ziggurat]

As did I the proposition that preventing Trump from running would cause a civil war

I don't think it will cause a civil war, but it will drastically increase partisan tensions and invite retribution from Republican states, and it's going to be very bad for the country.

which was the reductio ad absurdum you seem to have missed.

Because you did it badly. That's not on me.

I don't think a civil war will happen in either case.

Then don't argue that you do.

 

[JayUtah]

Civil war is fairly unrealistic...

Agreed. I don't actually think there will be one in either case. I didn't raise the specter of one. But my point is that if you're going to raise it, seriously consider both sides.

 

[Hercules56]

But according to you we need fear a civil war from only one side: Trump supporters, if they don't get what they want.

That's not what I said and you know it.

 

[JayUtah]

Because you did it badly. That's not on me.

Or perhaps, as I said, you didn't catch it because that's almost always how reductio ad absurdum lands.

Then don't argue that you do.

I didn't. I threw the reverse question back as a hypothetical, which both you and Hercules56 latched onto as an affirmative claim. And there's your straw man.

 

[Hercules56]

It's silly and foolish to ignore the consequences of a President who tried to overthrow the government.



So we can certainly ban future hypothetical insurrectionists, just not the one insurrectionist in fact who showed us how important it is to ban insurrectionists from holding office.

Ban Trump with rushed legislation that relies on killing the filibuster and having a super rushed Federal trial?

Yes, that would be an insane idea.

 

[JayUtah]

That's not what I said and you know it.

Well...

If Trump wins the election this year, I see no reason why Dems would start a civil war.

 

[ahhell]

Why would you expect that? We didn't get constitutional crises during his first term.

Primarily because he had lots of folks telling him no we can't do that. Those people aren't going to work for him anymore. He will have nothing but yes men this time. He's profoundly and willfully ignorant on the limits of presidential power and will continually be taken to court on account of it. Again, there is no way this administration will have someone like Pence or Barr to tell Trump no.

And then there was that thing that happened on Jan 6th.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/exit-survey-trumps-constitutional-misdeeds

Indeed, this is one of multiple reasons the idea is ridiculous. Trump isn't a deep planner.



Well, yes. Such an attempt would fail, I think Trump knows it would fail, and winning a second term is enough.

That's mostly true, I don't think he knows such an attempt would fail though, from what I can tell he still thinks pence had the authority to declare the election void or whatever nonsense. I do think is ego won't be bruised by just saying, I could win if I could run.

 

[Hercules56]

But according to you we need fear a civil war from only one side: Trump supporters, if they don't get what they want.

Again, I never said that.

What I DID say, which you are well aware of but ignore for whatever ridiculous reason, is that there might be a civil war if the Dems rush through legislation to make a new law (by killing the filibuster) and then try and convict Trump all in January, so as to keep him from taking office.

THAT might lead to a civil war.

Keep up.

 

[JayUtah]

What I DID say, which you are well aware of but ignore for whatever ridiculous reason, is that there might be a civil war if the Dems rush through legislation to make a new law (by killing the filibuster) and then try and convict Trump all in January, so as to keep him from taking office.

Yes, the "what they want" would be the the absence of any of this.

THAT might lead to a civil war.

Started by whom? Not BLM. Not the Dems. No, started by the people who wouldn't be getting what they want if Trump is subjected to due process for his actions. You know, Trump supporters.

 

[Hercules56]

Yes, the "what they want" would be the the absence of any of this.



Started by whom? Not BLM. Not the Dems. No, started by the people who wouldn't be getting what they want if Trump is subjected to due process for his actions. You know, Trump supporters.

Rushing a new law by killing the filibuster and then rushing an indictment and conviction, ALL in 20 days, would be fair? Would be due process?

No, it would look like a ******* joke, a new law railroaded through Congress, a court coming up with a rushed judgement, so as to stop Trump.

THAT is what Trump's supporters might get violent over.

Could you blame them?

 

[JayUtah]

THAT is what Trump's supporters might get violent over.

As long as we agree that's the actual danger you're threatening and not some silly both-sides argument.

Could you blame them?

Yes.

 

[Hercules56]

I can't believe people here are actually suggesting that if the Dems win back the House, they should rush through a new law that would ban Trump, the Senate should kill the filibuster to pass the new law, then indict Trump and convict him, all before January 21st.

How would that NOT be an injustice and abuse of the system???

 

[JayUtah]

How would that NOT be an injustice and abuse of the system???

As opposed to "Give me what I want or I might start a civil war?"

Trump's opponents took this specific case to the courts. The courts, after quite a lot of deliberation, said, "No, you need to have a law from Congress if you want to enforce this provision against this person." So if Congress then passes a law and it forms an appropriate cause of action that can be tried, why is it inappropriate to attempt to make all this happen in such a way that it alleviates the specific case that precipitated all this rushing about in the first place?

 

[Hercules56]

As opposed to "Give me what I want or I might start a civil war?"

Trump's opponents took this specific case to the courts. The courts, after quite a lot of deliberation, said, "No, you need to have a law from Congress if you want to enforce this provision against this person." So if Congress then passes a law and it forms an appropriate cause of action that can be tried, why is it inappropriate to attempt to make all this happen in such a way that it alleviates the specific case that precipitated all this rushing about in the first place?

You think passing a new law via killing the filibuster, indicting, trying and convicting all in 21 days would NOT look like a massive injustice???

Wow, talk about wanting to kill democracy in order to save it.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

This is the stupidest sentiment I've ever heard.

I, however, have heard even stupider sentiments.

In particular, I have heard even stupider sentiments expressed by members of Congress, as they bloviated about the specific insurrection and insurrectionist that led to the specific Supreme Court decision that suggested the specific remedy that is the putative subject of this specific thread.

Nobody needs you telling us what is and is not the question being asked. We're not stupid.

If I were a skeptic, I'd ask for more evidence of our non-stupidity than has been provided within this thread.

Which is not to say that everything said within this thread has been stupid. Here's a non-stupid example:

Trump's opponents took this specific case to the courts. The courts, after quite a lot of deliberation, said, "No, you need to have a law from Congress if you want to enforce this provision against this person." So if Congress then passes a law and it forms an appropriate cause of action that can be tried, why is it inappropriate to attempt to make all this happen in such a way that it alleviates the specific case that precipitated all this rushing about in the first place?

 

[Ziggurat]

Primarily because he had lots of folks telling him no we can't do that.

And did he not do it just because someone told him he can't do it? Or did he not do it because, you know, he couldn't do it?

Most executive branch employees are not political appointees. They will be the same ones under Trump as they are under Biden. Do you think Trump being president is going to magically make them turn into MAGA extremists who discard any considerations of legality? Yeah, no. That's not how government actually works.

And then there was that thing that happened on Jan 6th.

What, a protest that turned into a riot that Capitol Hill police badly mismanaged? Yeah, I'm really not worried about that.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/exit-survey-trumps-constitutional-misdeeds

I suspect you didn't actually read this source, which makes fairly plain that the author's complaints aren't any worse than how he thinks other presidents have also violated the constitution. Would you argue that Obama created constitutional crises?

 

[JayUtah]

Rushing a new law by killing the filibuster and then rushing an indictment and conviction, ALL in 20 days, would be fair? Would be due process?

It's a lot more fair than "Give me what I want, or I might start a civil war." It's due process in the sense that, at each step, the question is being addressed by elements of government that have the constitutional authority to do so, acting within their assigned roles.

No, it would look like a ******* joke, a new law railroaded through Congress, a court coming up with a rushed judgement, so as to stop Trump.

To whom? At every step of this process the focus has been entirely on Trump and his actions at the end of his term as President. Every court case, every media presentation, every argument for whether he is fit once again to hold office. But now, for some reason, as the matter progresses to the next evolution of governmental response, it can no longer have a specific goal in mind. That's pure ad hoc thinking.

As a practical matter, no, I doubt it could happen. But that's not what you're complaining about. Ziggurat brought up the questionable optics of doing this, to which I responded. You then said :—

No way in hell such a new law would break a filibuster...

and I corrected you with

The practicality and likelihood of passing such a bill was not the question. The providence of doing so was the question.

I got back the haughty content-free response :—

Nobody needs you telling us what is and is not the question being asked. We're not stupid.

But it seems we are back to talking about the optics. And you seem to feel they're bad enough that Trump supporters might start a civil war.

I'm not interested in the optics or providential handwringing. "We shouldn't be doing this because it looks bad," doesn't land with me. "We can try to do this, but it probably won't succeed in the desired effect," is something I'll probably just have to live with.

 

[JayUtah]

You think passing a new law via killing the filibuster, indicting, trying and convicting all in 21 days would NOT look like a massive injustice???

Wow, talk about wanting to kill democracy in order to save it.

How so? I'm the one advocating that we follow the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court to address a specific situation in the manner prescribed. You're the one seeming to say, "Don't do anything or else Trump supporters might start a war." I'm pretty confident in my devotion to the ideals of democracy and the rule of law on this point.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ziggurat brought up the questionable optics of doing this, to which I responded.

No. Once again, you misunderstood my post. It wasn't about the optics. It was about crafting bad legislation which was tailored to this case instead of being of general utility.