While obviously Chansley deserves to face punishment for his crimes, let’s not pretend that it wasn’t an obscenity that Eugene Debs had to run for office from prison for suggesting that the US had no business throwing lives away in the trenches of World War I
It will probably ultimately depend on whether or not the Supreme Court decides to uphold the 14th amendment of the Constitution. The lower courts are slowly working their way towards bringing that question to the Supreme Court as it relates to Trump.
You bring up an interesting point, and I'll admit I am not a constitutional lawyer. But section 3 of the 14th amendment says that hey couldn't have sworn to uphold the Constitution prior to attempting insurrection. Thats how they are framing it for Trump too because he swore to uphold the Constitution when he came into office. I don't know if Chansley had done the same or if that would make a difference.
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…
He took an oath as a member of the military, he also took part in insurrection.
The crimes charged in the indictment involve active participation in an insurrection attempting to violently overthrow the United States Government. By Chansley’s own admissions to the FBI and news media, the insurrection is still in progress and he intends to continue participating.
You and I might agree that it applies, but how much do you want to bet that some Trump appointed judges decide that it doesn’t apply and kill any effort to remove him from the ballot?
Ya’ll keep saying these things like I don’t already know, but regardless of what the 14th amendment says, or his military background, ultimately that determination will be made by a court decision, because if nothing else he will sue the state if they choose to take him off the ballot. I didn’t make the rules, or the legal system.
As much as I want to say no, to my knowledge he technically hadn't "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" so I think he'd be eligible under Amendment 14, Section 3, article 1... quoted here in full:
Fourteenth Amendment, 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.
Though, he had previously been in the US Navy, and the Navy oath of enlistment begins ""I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic....," he was not even an officer in the Navy let alone in a legislative, executive or judicial branch position.
Pretty sure he would be eligible to run this time, whereas trump would not.
In 2016, the libertarian convention had a guy strip to his underwear on stage. At the convention debate, one of the candidates was boo’d for saying you shouldn’t be able to sell heroin to five year olds.
The QAnon Shaman isn’t the craziest thing in the Libertarian Party. They are not serious people.
As an Arizona voter I’m not voting for him but there are worse people running in politics. This guy is Qanon crazy but not morally bankrupt like some others. Watch the Channel 5 with Andrew Callihan video. I guarantee the image you have in your head is different than who this guy is in reality.
The image I have in my head is a guy in a psychotic costume walking out of the capitol with the speakers lectern under his arm while shit dried on the walls and blood dried on the floors. Ive watched this video and it didnt dispel that image in my head.
For all his flaws, Camacho at least tried to enlist the help of, and listen to, people he knew were smarter than him. And at the end of the day, he tried to help his people.
This guy just wants to play dress up and smear shit on the walls.
Gee, let me think about it. According to this article he may be uniquely suited to run as a Republican.
In an interview, defense lawyer Albert Watkins said that officials at the federal Bureau of Prisons, or BOP, have diagnosed his client Jacob Chansley with transient schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression and anxiety.
If you throw in a low IQ, he’ll do well with Republican voters.
He’d best have a good security detail. If anything goes awry, a bunch of Leftists are going to be peacefully asking him pointed questions that might make him uncomfortable.
If you’re assuaged to believe that winning means everything, I can’t speak for you. It assumes that you start and stay on the same side of any moral argument and you have to fight for it to the end regardless of if new evidence nullifies your opinion.
That’s not how humans understand each-other. Humans garner nuance and discern things in new and meaningful ways over time and social interaction. We understand others - people that we can identify with in profound ways even if they don’t necessarily share our point of view.
I would give him a moment of our time - maybe 30 seconds if he doesn’t state one of the over-used vitriolic statements on the Bingo cards that I will be handing out now.
Crap like this is why I stopped referring to myself as libertarian so many years ago. It’s been as co-opted by far-right fascists and neo-nazis the same way “socialist” was by literal historical nazis.
My views have evolved over the years (largely due to realizing that “liberal” means can never result in liberal ends), but I am tired of right wing terrorists stealing leftist terminology to obscure their despicable, repugnant, authoritarian, oppressive views.
I wonder how long before “leftist” itself gets go-opted, too?
Anarchism is leftist. Libertarianism, by definition, is “soft-anarchism”, or the belief that “government” (if you could even call it that) is a loose allegiance of the people (likely based on a charter or constitution) whose purpose is almost solely the resolution of disputes. This would be - in theory (but not in practice) - a kind of egalitarianism.
With libertarianism, the means and the ends diverge dramatically… because it paints the means as sacrosanct at the cost of the ends; so in practice and in fact such a system favors and breeds tyrants and devolves almost immediately into rightist feudal-like structures.
I describe this phenomenon as “rightward pressure”. In any situation where scarcity exists in any form, the greedy, selfish nature of humanity will create rightward pressure as some will attempt to hoard wealth and power, which will always come at the expense of the rest.
And so I also make a distinction between stable and unstable leftism. A stable system is one that actively works against rightward drift (generally by strictly preventing entrenched authority, any kind of political class, and the hoarding of wealth & power).
All that said, the word libertarian as a concept is different than people who call themselves libertarian. This is primarily for two reasons:
Ignorant idealism. Those who embrace those ideals have not yet realized how unstable and dangerous they are. They are idealistic and impractical. One could even say: immature. They dream of having absolute power over their own lives, but this is a dangerous dream because they will gladly extend that to others on their property or in their sphere of influence. This is a limitless ambition that will always seek to grow, even into oppression… or worse. Libertarianism (and anarchism) are focused exclusively on “freedom to” but completely disregards any manner of “freedom from”… such as freedom from being robbed, murdered, assaulted, etc. “Freedom to” is sacrosanct, but “freedom from” is entirely the sole responsibility of each and every individual themselves.
The rightward pressure inherent to this “fiercely individually independent” mindset causes a rightward drift psychologically, simply through repeated mental exercise. It drives an adherent to embrace tyranny without even realizing they have done so… because wielding absolute power is the core of their fantasy, and supporting others in their use of it helps fulfill a small part of that fantasy.
Ergo: libertarianism is categorically an “unstable leftist” ideal… but it’s self-proclaimed adherents are almost always authoritarian rightists in practice, for the reasons I have outlined above.
P.S. There is, of course, a large number of extreme rightists who have coopted the term as well; because they have seen those corrupted idealists embrace the tyranny and found “libertarian” to be more comfortable than admitting what they really are: fascistic totalitarian tyrants.
Hello again! Once more, you’re blatantly incorrect!
You’re clearly not a lawyer. The only people I have EVER met who are as prodigious at misinforming others about the law are currently incarcerated people, who are commonly referred to as “jailhouse lawyers.” Please, stop spreading misinformation here; I’m actually begging you.
You do a disservice to EVERYONE that you hope will vote against these people. You allow them to think some obscure, rarely -prosecuted thing written somewhere will magically just solve all the problems. They won’t. This is an ENORMOUS stress test of American democracy, and “hoping words on paper” cures everything is farcical. These systems we have in place are slow, the Supreme Court is stacked in ideological opposition to your hopes and dreams, and placing faith in these miracle words is just fucking naive.
People, please, I beg you all to campaign for people who uphold your principles and defend the constitution, then go VOTE for them. Additionally, I implore you to actually follow these court cases and read up on the law. Or at least, listen to actual constitutional lawyers talk about these topics. Then, completely fucking disregard everything YoBuckStopsHere says because they’re flat out wrong every fucking time.
It only applies if he took an oath to uphold the constitution prior to committing the treason.
I.E. government officials and ex military personnel who took place in the Jan 6 riots would be disqualified, but not every random yahoo that was there.
EDIT: Others have pointed out that he is ex-military, so it looks like the 14th amendment does apply to him after all.
Add comment