A recent article in the Atlantic described a way in which, if the Democrats lost the presidential election but won a majority of House seats, they could put Biden in the White House.
It seems to me that parties within a contract can never obtain perfect security for themselves, and sooner or later that have to start relying on--trust.
I probably mentioned this here before, but it's a propos here again.
I told my students:
1) it is impossible to write a law or rule that doesn't have a loophole. (Because human natural language is not 'strong' enough to write that way, and all laws/rules are written in natural language.)
2) Finding and exploiting loopholes (or gaming the system) pays off (especially to early exploiters) better than finding and closing loopholes.
3) It's actually useless to find and close loopholes anyway, because whatever law/rule you write to close a loophole will have at least one new loophole of its own.
I then usually gave them a couple of weeks to find a "loophole" they didn't like and write something that would close it without opening a new one. If I couldn't find a loophole they could quit attending, writing for, or testing n the class and would have an A for the semester.
I kind of felt sorry for the ones who put in a lot of effort writing something I destroyed in a few minutes. Although a few may have learned something.
You have hit most but not all of the potential objections to applying Section 3. One that you missed (and the Supreme Court didn't decide) is whether or not the Presidency is an "office under the United States," a phrase elsewhere used to refer only to appointed officials.
Also not addressed is the fact, well known among Republicans, that "January 6 was an inside job." That is, similar to that "Unite the Right" rally, the FBI hijacked a peaceful protest by infiltrating hundreds of Feds and informants with instructions to commit violence while posing as Republicans -- thus enabling Pelosi (who planned the whole thing) to arrange to skip the procedural step in which VP Pence could object to certifying the electoral votes that came from cheating.
In short, like many people, you have been had by the Demonrat controlled media. Trump was duly re-elected in 2020 and was cheated of it.
Finally, your statement that "Rules are not enough" is correct but for the wrong reason. Like the Constitution itself, rules of any kind do not enforce themselves. If a peaceful, honest transfer of power is again prevented by cheating and not overturned by the courts, then Trump, or anybody in his position in the future, will be justified in "crossing the Rubicon" and eventually one of them will.
For another good puzzle, check out John Calvin Batchelor's Father's Day, a thriller built around the 25th amendment (which lets the president temporarily step aside due to illness) but doesn't specify who decides if the president is sufficiently "better" to return to office. Great fun.
What a nice little diversion this appears to be for persons who manage to be unperturbed by the obvious fact that the GOP has nominated a psychopath who made a coup attempt on TV for everyone to see, and that the SCOTUS is enabling this gang of fascists. Let's pretend this is only a partisan view and not even remotely a factual observation, and let's have some fun. Only simpletons like me find themselves in some kind of a rerun of the OJ Simpson trial, which concluded that the obvious was not obvious but only something for suckers. Let's raise the question next whether the SCOTUS would have been helpful to Hitler in avoiding prison for his coup attempt. That case was probably full of holes, too. And let's ask how the Democrats would look at it if Hitler had been THEIR guy.
“They did rule that he could only be barred by suitable legislation, hence not by a vote on certifying the election. That is, I suspect, what the minority justices were unhappy with.”
I doubt that’s what they were unhappy with. For one thing, the majority wasn’t specific about what kind of legislation it would take, only that it be Congressional action, and a vote to certify the election would certainly be Congressional action.
Second, they actually described a scenario that they felt the majority had incorrectly ruled out: a public official imposes a penalty on a citizen, who then brings suit claiming the official isn’t qualified for office under 14Asec3, and therefore the official has no authority to issue the penalty.
Maybe they were secretly hoping for what you describe, but I would start with what they actually said until I have evidence that they’re dissembling.
"Checking a table of male mortality by age, that gives him about a 40% chance of dying during his second term and being replaced by a Republican."
A table of mortality by sex and age is clearly not a good metric, as it encompasses many people who are already in hospice, already diagnosed with advanced cancer, etc.
"Rules are not enough. There is never enough fine print to cover everything."
Important point.
It's a near quote of something my father said about why you couldn't specify everything in a contract.
I agree, I wrote a piece about how rules and principles underdetermine actions which is related to that point, I think https://triangulation.substack.com/p/two-views-of-ideology
It seems to me that parties within a contract can never obtain perfect security for themselves, and sooner or later that have to start relying on--trust.
In the world of security critical software in general and smart contracts in particular, we passionately disagree with this notion. :-)
People in the black-hat security cracking community are perfectly happy to have you keep disagreeing. :-)
I probably mentioned this here before, but it's a propos here again.
I told my students:
1) it is impossible to write a law or rule that doesn't have a loophole. (Because human natural language is not 'strong' enough to write that way, and all laws/rules are written in natural language.)
2) Finding and exploiting loopholes (or gaming the system) pays off (especially to early exploiters) better than finding and closing loopholes.
3) It's actually useless to find and close loopholes anyway, because whatever law/rule you write to close a loophole will have at least one new loophole of its own.
I then usually gave them a couple of weeks to find a "loophole" they didn't like and write something that would close it without opening a new one. If I couldn't find a loophole they could quit attending, writing for, or testing n the class and would have an A for the semester.
I kind of felt sorry for the ones who put in a lot of effort writing something I destroyed in a few minutes. Although a few may have learned something.
You have hit most but not all of the potential objections to applying Section 3. One that you missed (and the Supreme Court didn't decide) is whether or not the Presidency is an "office under the United States," a phrase elsewhere used to refer only to appointed officials.
Also not addressed is the fact, well known among Republicans, that "January 6 was an inside job." That is, similar to that "Unite the Right" rally, the FBI hijacked a peaceful protest by infiltrating hundreds of Feds and informants with instructions to commit violence while posing as Republicans -- thus enabling Pelosi (who planned the whole thing) to arrange to skip the procedural step in which VP Pence could object to certifying the electoral votes that came from cheating.
In short, like many people, you have been had by the Demonrat controlled media. Trump was duly re-elected in 2020 and was cheated of it.
Finally, your statement that "Rules are not enough" is correct but for the wrong reason. Like the Constitution itself, rules of any kind do not enforce themselves. If a peaceful, honest transfer of power is again prevented by cheating and not overturned by the courts, then Trump, or anybody in his position in the future, will be justified in "crossing the Rubicon" and eventually one of them will.
For another good puzzle, check out John Calvin Batchelor's Father's Day, a thriller built around the 25th amendment (which lets the president temporarily step aside due to illness) but doesn't specify who decides if the president is sufficiently "better" to return to office. Great fun.
What a nice little diversion this appears to be for persons who manage to be unperturbed by the obvious fact that the GOP has nominated a psychopath who made a coup attempt on TV for everyone to see, and that the SCOTUS is enabling this gang of fascists. Let's pretend this is only a partisan view and not even remotely a factual observation, and let's have some fun. Only simpletons like me find themselves in some kind of a rerun of the OJ Simpson trial, which concluded that the obvious was not obvious but only something for suckers. Let's raise the question next whether the SCOTUS would have been helpful to Hitler in avoiding prison for his coup attempt. That case was probably full of holes, too. And let's ask how the Democrats would look at it if Hitler had been THEIR guy.
“They did rule that he could only be barred by suitable legislation, hence not by a vote on certifying the election. That is, I suspect, what the minority justices were unhappy with.”
I doubt that’s what they were unhappy with. For one thing, the majority wasn’t specific about what kind of legislation it would take, only that it be Congressional action, and a vote to certify the election would certainly be Congressional action.
Second, they actually described a scenario that they felt the majority had incorrectly ruled out: a public official imposes a penalty on a citizen, who then brings suit claiming the official isn’t qualified for office under 14Asec3, and therefore the official has no authority to issue the penalty.
Maybe they were secretly hoping for what you describe, but I would start with what they actually said until I have evidence that they’re dissembling.
"Checking a table of male mortality by age, that gives him about a 40% chance of dying during his second term and being replaced by a Republican."
A table of mortality by sex and age is clearly not a good metric, as it encompasses many people who are already in hospice, already diagnosed with advanced cancer, etc.