Agreed.
There is an even easier logic that _could be_ for these questions. It would
center on how much agency is given to a person by inhabiting an office, and
where exclusion of the person needs to be done to keep that agency from
enabling actions that destroy whatever system “the country”
If Trump had been a staffer for a senator, he’d be SOL in this view? If that’s
a good predicate for disqualification, it seems weird to specifically not give
an override to vetted individuals (appointed insurrectionists) versus
unvetted-by-appointment yet vetted by prior election.
From: Friam
Thanks, Glen. It's great to hear your "voice" on this topic. I am
particularly grateful for the ad hominem stuff. I want to read the
district Judge's opinion but there are things I want to do more and age is
really catching up with me.
Take care. The world needs you.
Nick
On Mon, Jan 8,
The argument seems pretty clear to me. "Officer" is jargonal, not intuitive.
Were I to read it charitably, I'd agree. Appointees are not elected. Electees should have
more leeway than appointees ... like the difference between an elected Sheriff and her
deputies. But like all dichotomies, this
