LogFAQs > #978727360

s0nicfan posted...

You're correct that Section 3 doesn't say anything about charges, it just says that someone who engaged in insurrection can be barred. The problem is, from a legal perspective how do you prove that someone has engaged in insurrection without doing so through the courts? Section 1 of that same amendment also explicitly states that a person cannot be denied due process, so the very same amendment that people would use to remove him also requires that he'd be given due process. The fact that he's also been indicted on charges explicitly related to the election but hasn't yet gone to trial also shows that there are legal mechanisms to formally determine whether he is guilty of those things or not, so it will be that much harder to argue that he should be punished prior to those trials reaching their conclusion, because theoretically it would open the doors to pre-punishing anyone for crimes they've been charged with prior to their guilty verdict.

It doesn't deny due process though, and the trial isn't meant to determine if he is innocent, only guilty.

Heavy_D_Forever posted...

It's the right call.

Narrator: It wasn't.