This Blog Should Not Exist, Part 3.11: Two stories with ominous clouds on the horizon.

First, meet Darren Bailey.  Running for Congress, Republican from Illinois -- if he makes it that long.

This was his response to a 4-3 verdict by the state Supreme Court upholding the state's assault weapons ban:

"I’m standing here on my front porch. This porch kind of became famous through the governor’s run and became famous when I was speaking on nonsense. And I made a statement. And sometimes when we make these statements, we don’t know where this is going to go. But if need be, this front porch will be my final stand. I will not allow anyone to infringe on my property on my Second Amendment rights. I will not allow anyone to come and take anything from me. And if need be, as I quoted before, I will die on this front porch before I give up any of my Second Amendment freedoms."

I'd say that's an offer, much like the guy from Utah.

Would you think so much of the Second Amendment if I had a gun, knowing that I would use it offensively?

Hey, you might have some balls, but you're probably going to end up in the ground, just like that guy from Utah this week...

==========

And that's if it all doesn't go up in the next few months.

Two arch-Conservative lawyers (William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas) of the Federalist Society (so you know these are no friends of liberals of any kind!!!) have said the following about Donald Trump and the 2024 election in the 2024 University of Pennsylvania Law Review:

• Since Section Three of the 14th Amendment is, in the view of these legal scholars, enforceable on it's face without further action, Donald Trump is (in their view) already and irrevocably disqualified from the Presidency and the 2024 election for same or any other office.
• And Section Three also nullifies all contrary situations, including that it can act as a bill of attainder, an action ex post facto, and in situations which may be covered by the First and Fourth Amendments.

That's a strong statement -- so the first question intelligent people should ask is:  What's the endgame?

First off, the abstract states that all relevant judges, etc. should enforce this.  But what if they choose not to, and additionally do not even believe the events of January 6, 2021 constitute an insurrection?

You could even get to the point where Donald Trump could be removed from ballots in some states, not in others, and you eventually have a situation where any of the following things could happen:

• A brokered Republican convention, at best
• Two different Republican candidates, at worst
• A non-zero chance of four, perhaps even FIVE (Biden, 14th Amendment Legal R, Trump, No Labels, perhapsRFK Jr. splintering off to a third-party) relevant candidates come November
• The Presidential election devolving to the House under the 12th Amendment
• or even a 20th Amendment Section 3 selection of a President by the Congress
• ... which would probably require a material nullification of the 2024 election, part and parcel.  And if this line of thinking actually gets some traction, that's not an impossibility.

So what, gentlemen, is your endgame?  As much as Biden may not be the President the rest of us want, it's clear that Trump has such a lead among the opposition that many among them say they'll overwhelm the system and write him in!

The problem is:  Would those votes count?  If Trump is disallowed, for example, in California, that answer is NO.  Only "certified write-in candidates" can be counted in the state.

As usual, stay tuned.