• Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    11 months ago

    Not sure what you mean by historical presidents. Did you mean precedence ? Prior cases we people who actually formed a new country. I’m not aware of anything other cases where there was a riot alone. Can you cite a prior case where they were not in a state that rebelled ?

    • PizzaMan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      I do not accept your attempt to move the goal posts. Your claim was about whether conviction was necessary. It is not.

      • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        11 months ago

        It’s not moving the goalpost.

        I suspect because he was never part of a rebellion, has not been charged with it or convicted of it, scotus will reject the courts opinion. The previous cases didn’t need a conviction because it was considered de facto