The MAGA GOP proudly claims to have a mandate to advance their agenda and impose their will on the American people. I am writing this at 1:34 PM EST while observing the vote for the Speaker of the House. Allow me to explain why I believe there is no such mandate.
I start by providing a definition of the term “mandate.” A mandate refers to the authority bestowed upon an individual or entity to exercise power over a wide range of issues that impact a specific jurisdiction or population. In numerous democratic systems, mandates are obtained through either legal means or elections.
Voters, during elections, choose parties and candidates based on their policy preferences, thereby conveying mandates. We interpret these election results to determine which policies the public supports.
Based on my understanding, ‘He who shall not be named’ by definition won the election. The Democrats lost the election. It is crucial to note that the fact is the election was lost, not stolen, which is another key point emphasized. I believe this point holds significance.
Regarding mandates, it is important to note that a slim majority does not constitute a clear mandate. This point became evident to me when I observed a chaotic and disorganized vote on the floor of the House. One challenge with mandates is that Congress consists of individuals who may have their own interpretations of what the mandate entails. Let us focus on the reality of the situation. The recent vote on the House floor indicates that numerous GOP members have their own ideas and perspectives.
In my humble opinion, I don’t believe there is a mandate, and I truly hope they cease forcefully pushing their divisive and false rhetoric on us, assuming we will eventually succumb and believe it. As a result, I assert and firmly believe that the only mandate arising from a popular vote margin of less than 1% is the inauguration of the unnamed individual as president.
I inquire whether he can be sworn in, as I attempt to grapple with reality. Numerous legal scholars, both conservative and liberal, strongly believe that he cannot. Why is that? The reason lies in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits individuals who have participated in insurrection or rebellion against the nation, including current and former federal, state, and military officials, from holding office again. The issue at hand is not related to the recent decision allowing people to vote.
Following the American Civil War, the nation ratified the 14th Amendment. Section 3 of the amendment. It was utilized to prevent secessionists from resuming their previous government positions after the southern states rejoined the Union. After the riot incited by Him, the US House of Representatives impeached the then-president for the charge of “incitement of insurrection”.
Does this imply that Section 3 functions as a self-executing provision, resulting in an immediate disqualification from office, without requiring any further action from Congress? This is grounded in the fact that the individual in question, had previously been sworn in and taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, yet subsequently engaged (emphasizing the significance of this word) in an insurrection or rebellion against the government established by the Constitution, rendering him ineligible to hold office again.
Now, I will endeavor to provide a definition of an insurrection. Additionally, I will briefly discuss the act of engaging in insurrections, as well as the fact that he was in dereliction of his duty and had made a sworn commitment to do so. Can these actions be considered sufficient to be classified as engaging in insurrections?
There have been numerous examples throughout history that showcase resistance against authority, and this is precisely what occurred on January 6th, 2021. On that day, he attempted to defy the government’s authority in tallying the electoral votes. This led him to incite his followers to target Congress, stating, “You will never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and be strong!”
That statement indicates that the First Amendment does not protect him because his speech is political. Legal options were available to him if he correctly claimed the election was stolen. He could have had a strong defense against the charge of insurrection. If he had taken appropriate actions and protested in the proper manner, he could have influenced me to have a different perspective on this situation. However, he did not do so. Although I could analyze various psychological factors that may have influenced his choices, that is not the focus of this discussion. But wait. Despite his efforts, he pursued the matter through the Courts and ultimately lost.
Section 3 does not apply to criminal offenses. In my humble opinion, after conducting thorough research, he did not commit treason. It pertains to a regulation regarding eligibility for holding public office. The regulation clearly prohibits individuals with certain characteristics from becoming president.
Therefore, I strongly assert and firmly believe that “He who shall not be named” cannot fulfill the responsibilities and obligations of the oath of office on January 20th, 2025 (and will inevitably violate it again unless held accountable). Period.
As I make my way back, the anticipation fills the air with a mix of tension and curiosity. I can hear the buzz of conversations echoing through the room. I can’t help but feel the weight of the moment as I prepare to witness the unfolding of round two in this ongoing battle. The GOP’s stubborn refusal to accept reality adds an extra layer of intrigue to the proceedings.
References are taken from Los Angeles Times, Harvard Law Center, BBC and University of Chicago
Комментарии