Is Trump disqualified from running? A fair analysis

It’s tough to have a fairly balanced analysis of the situation, but I think you’ve done it JJ. Nice work!

It's also important to note that US Code 18 §2383 was passed in 1948, while the 14th Amendment was written in 1868. No one involved in the Civil War could have been convicted under §2383 when the 14th Amendment was passed because it wouldn't exist for another 80 years.

My guess is that the Supreme Court will point to Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, which reads, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." and rule that it's up to Congress to spell out the exact process of disqualification. That punts the ball over to Congress and lets the Supreme Court wash their hands of the matter without appearing to take sides.

The argument that the President is not an office of the US state is directly refuted by the Oath that the President swears which specifies the "Office of President". I don't know why this has not been stated, (as far as I know) in any of these discussions.

There's a problem with the argument about not explicitly naming President or Vice President. Congress debated and revised the language of the 14th amendment prior to its passing and had the following exchange: "Why did you omit to exclude them?" asked Maryland Democratic Sen. Reverdy Johnson. Maine's Lot Morrill jumped in to clarify. "Let me call the Senator's attention to the words 'or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States,'" Morrill said, ending the discussion on that point. It's very clear, from the framers of the law that this was to include any position of power within the US and applies to anyone who has held a position of power within the United States or the States within.

Good watch. My only minor contention is that I wouldn’t say Trump has ever accepted that he lost. Maybe ‘it has been accepted’ in the utilitarian sense that he is no longer living at the White House or having everyone treat him as president.

Even though almost the whole 3rd section of the 14th amendment seems broad and ambiguous, the last part saying "But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability" makes it seem like this was originally intended to be self-executing and in full effect until further legislation. This is going to be one hell of a case, indeed.

I wish you did more videos involving commentary on modern politics. You're refreshingly cogent.

I think Cruz is closest to what the actual opinion will be. What has to be remembered is the Civil War just ended and it was obvious who took part in the CSA government in open rebellion against the US; all you had to do was compile a list of office holders, military officers, etc. and you had a list of men who were in open rebellion against the US.

"No Insurrections" 😂 nice thumbnail JJ. It had me laughing before I even clicked on the video. Well done 🇺🇸

I feel like someone would need to prove in court that he committed insurrection in a full trial rather than a judge just ruling it to be true.

The lawmakers who wrote the 14th Amendment were acting against politicians who BROKE AN OATH, a thing that was seen as much more serious in the 19th century than apparently it is today. "An honorable man's word is as good as his bond." to quote Miguel de Cervantes.

I feel more informed now and therefore less sure which way to lean. Excellent video.

“Today we are going to do something that we do not do often on this channel” And discuss a political topic. I’ve been subscribed for some time since you talked about politics regularly. For some time now, this has more or less transformed into a cultural analysis channel. I must say that you do a good job of covering both of these subjects! I was just surprised to see a political analysis from JJ in my notifications

Probably my favorite video of yours I’ve ever watched. Clear, concise, factual and informative.

Since any ruling the court may give will infuriate roughly one half of the country, it seems chaos is coming regardless. It's simply a question of what kind and by whom.

Looks like Ted Cruz was right about the unanimous ruling.

I think the big problem is that this could be abused. If each state can decide who is an "insurrectionist" or not, then blue states will kick any red candidate off of the ballot, and vice-versa. There has to be a national standard to avoid it from becoming arbitrary and capricious.

Probably fairer than most us media

The biggest issue was stated by Ben Wittes at 20:00. The amendment is about objective reality. That was a simple matter in 1865 after a Civil War in which separatists formed an independent government and fought a war against the US. No one anywhere doubted that an insurrection happened and no one disputed the people involved. But here we have a case where reasonable people can disagree whether or not an insurrection occurred, and also disagree about who was involved and to what extent if they agree it did. Because those doubts exist and haven't been resolved, I I'd bet the SC throws this out.