Read on Twitter
This excellent piece in the @latimes by @pennlaw professor @KermitRoosevelt on Section 3 adds the compelling historical explanation/justification for the former president's disqualification from the presidency that has been missing from the national conversation to date:
"[The Civil War] was also different in its goal and rationale. The secessionists of the 19th century wanted to break away from the United States and start their own country. Confederate leader Jefferson Davis was their president, they declared, not Abraham Lincoln.
The Jan. 6 insurrectionists, by contrast, wanted to retain Trump as president of the United States. They weren’t trying to separate from the country; they were trying to take it over.
Stopping the lawfully elected president from taking office, keeping another in his place and doing so through violence and intimidation — that counts as insurrection by any standard. And the historical moment it evokes is less the Civil War than Reconstruction.
That is the period that reveals what happens when the enemies of democracy take power."
I would only elaborate on Professor Roosevelt's superb historical explanation and justification, using the precise words of the Fourteenth Amendment itself:
I would only elaborate on Professor Roosevelt's superb historical explanation and justification, using the precise words of the Fourteenth Amendment itself:
The events of January 6 certainly "count" as an insurrection or rebellion against [the Constitution of the United States], or giv[ing] aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
