To Pull a Cleveland

Did you know that the 14th Amendment precludes insurrectionists from holding office? 

Although, admittedly, it'ƒ ƒometimeƒ hard to tell what thiƒ thing ƒayƒ...

Pictured: Senator Josh Hawley
giving some aid and/or comfort.

Because it does, in section three:

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 office 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 there of. 

-The 14 Amendment, talking exactly about 

shit like the GOP's coup last January 6th

"Da da dat dat da ya da!"

-George III

Seems pretty clear. Clearer than say, the Second Amendment. It says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," but like, does that mean anyone can own any kind of weapon in any quantity and carry it around all the time like a psychopath? Or, is it saying that in 1789 we needed to keep militias handy in case the British Empire decided to strike back? Because I'm pretty sure James Madison never saw AR-15's coming. They'd have been like phasers to him.

Above: Taylor Green, seen here being
that dick that deliberately wears their mask
below their nose. God, these people...

And while it's possible for reasonable people to disagree on that one, I'm not sure the 14th Amendment has the same wiggle room. It was put in in the aftermath of the Civil War because at the time they knew that there's no way our system of government can function with fully half of it dedicated to overthrowing it and that's why that section is there. So I think a more than fair question would be why does Majorie Taylor Greene, Josh Hawley, or any other Republican who didn't offer a full-throated condemnation of the insurrection still have a job? 

And why is there even a chance that Donald Trump could pull a Grover Cleveland? Which, and let me stop you there, is not some weird sex thing (although, no kink shaming), but rather refers to the only President to serve two, non-consecutive terms in office.

Although Cleveland actually won the popular vote. For those
keeping score, Trump has never won the popular vote. Ever.

They talk a lot about how great America is, but
they're the ones trying dismantle the right to vote.

I mention this because it's come up recently that maybe Donald Trump, not satisfied with a disastrous singe term, and making demonstrably false claims in an attempt to undermine democracy as, you know, a thing, might try to run for President again. And he could totally win. Again, not because most Americans would vote for him, but because the Republican Party has spent the better part of the last fifteen years gaming the system to make sure only their votes count. But who cares? He fomented an insurrection, so he's off the ballot, right? Right?

"Fuck you, I do what I want."

-Mitch McConnell, see?

Well, since half the Senate is Republican we should mange our expectations of how and when rules are enforced. Take for example the time Mitch McConnell sat on Merrick Garland's Supreme Court nomination because he felt it was too close (ok, like a year) to the election? But then when Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, he forced through Amy Coney Barrett's appointment and then when asked about the blatant hypocrisy he waved two middle fingers and said "Fuck you, I do what I want." What? That's a direct quote.

Frustrating isn't it? You betcha. Anyway, according to this Huffington Post article, Senate Republicans could block this ban--because of course they could--but, I don't know. It kind of seems like they'd have to admit that Trump incited the insurrection to do so, right? Like, if he's not responsible, why would they need to block a ban on insurrectionists? But if they did move to block a ban, then they be admitting that he was responsible, but that they simply don't care. Which, I mean, they don't, but am I making any sense?

"Yes, but I'm afraid that you're assuming that we operate from a position of
reason or have a sense of shame, and I can assure you that neither is the case."

-Somehow still a Senator, Josh Hawley