• samsepi0l@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    9 months ago

    Doesn’t the “No person shall be a … elector of President and Vice President” just outright say that the statement obviously includes elected officials? Specifically the POTUS and VPOTUS?

    • I'm back on my BS 🤪@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 months ago

      I think it directly implies POTUS, especially this part:

      or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States,

      But also, they don’t have to be legally correct or in-keeping with the spirit of the Constitution. Under my assumption that a few of the Supreme Court Justices are surely psychopaths, they just need an interpretation that’s plausible enough to avoid consequences to themselves.

    • Saganaki@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      The argument I’ve seen is that the condition part of the clause (insurrection) by language only applies to the bit after “who, having previously…”

      Basically, the argument goes “It says you can’t be President or Vice President if you did insurrection while an officer of the US”—but it doesn’t say you can’t be President if you did insurrection while president of the US.

      To be clear: I think it’s fucking idiotic and against the spirit of the law—but I’m no lawyer/legal expert.