Progressive Politics

Well the issue as I see it is the courts. The insurrection clause was already written and amended into the constitution. Colorado took him off the ballot for it, the SC said he couldn't be taken off the ballot for it, not answering to whether he could hold office. They avoided it because they would have to state that The Oval Office, is an office. If brought before the courts now, they would have to rule again, saying that the he doesn't fit into these terms

"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 officer 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 . . ."

He took the oath of office upon entering his presidency. The presidential position is listed, he is also a military office.

Was Jan 6 an insurrection or an act of rebellion? Was calling Georgia and telling them to make up votes and act of rebellion? Was calling Nevada and telling them to change the electors and act of rebellion?

If the Supreme court says they are not. Biden has legal right to call all 50 states and tell them to submit new electors for whomever he wants and cannot be held responsible.

If they rule they are an act of rebellion, than he legally cannot hold office.