567
this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2023
567 points (97.0% liked)
politics
19144 readers
2447 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not trying to be hyperbolic but states selectively choosing who is allowed to be voted on as opposed to having it run as intended can cause a justification for a second civil war. This shouldnt be allowed. I dont care how vile Trump is to you. There is no rule that it can be left to the states to withhold votes in a federal election.
This isn't states choosing. It's the US constitution rightly preventing those who tried to destroy the country from ever holding office.
Was Trump convicted of insurrection or rebellion? Please remind me when he went to jail for insurrection. Ill agree with you 100% if he was proven guilty in a trial for insurrection. If not, then the state is taking it upon themselves to make shit up.
The precedent is that he doesn't need to be convicted of insurrection for the insurrection clause to apply.
You can be guilty of something without being guilty of something. Thats an interesting way to frame it. What is the precedent here?
A criminal conviction is not required to be disqualified under the 14th amendment. It's not a criminal punishment, but a requirement for holding public office, in the same vein as being at least 35 is a requirement to be President. There haven't been many that have been disqualified under the 14th amendment, but none of them were convicted either.
Whats the precedent here then? Or is the intent for this to be the precedent? I will actually send you a crisp $100 dollar bill if this doesnt get overturned by the US supreme court.
What's going to qualify as "precedent" to you? Another elected official being disqualified from public office after their involvement in the January 6th insurrection, even though they weren't convicted of insurrection? Or something else? Please be specific, I could really use that hundred bucks.
You are conflating New Mexico state authority to a federally elected authority. This is not precedent and im fairly certain the US supreme court would agree.
I'm not conflating anything. State precedent is still precedent, especially since federal precedent has not yet been set for this specific case. None of the other several cases where the 3rd section of the 14th amendment was invoked went to the federal Supreme Court. If you think that means "this is not precedent", then you don't understand the American judicial system.
Former Confederates were barred from holding public office regardless of whether they were actually charged with treason, or anything else
The argument is that section 3 of the 14th amendment is self-executing which in legal terms means that he doesn't have to be convicted for it to take effect. Similarly, we don't have to obtain a court ruling that Vladimir Putin isn't eligible to run for US president, for example, because the part of the Constitution requiring presidential candidates to be natural born citizens is also self-executing.
Whether or not section 3 is in fact self-executing is not settled law, so that could be one way the SCOTUS overturns the Colorado decision, as I think is likely.
The upshot is that given the above, you are in fact incorrect as a legal matter since it's well within the Colorado supreme Court's remit to rule that section 3 is self-executing whether we agree or not.
Were any of the Confederate leaders convicted? No, because the earliest incarnation of the law you're referring to weren't created until 50 years later. That was not the intent of the authors of the 14th amendment, as it would have hurt the reconciliation process to imprison all former Confederate leaders. They were nevertheless prevented from holding federal office.
Funny that you don't even try to deny that Trump may have been involved in inciting/leading an insurrection. It's only that he hasn't been found guilty of it by the courts. How will the goalposts shift if he is found guilty?
Dont get me wrong, i am only trying to defend the process. I would never vote for trump, he is an incarnation of everything we should not like about a portion of our society. Trump should have been thrown in prison years before he was even president for his many instances of fraud.
With that said if trump is found guilty of insurrection, which he absolutely should be, then i would say toss him in jail and let him rot. He is a disgusting human being and society is better without him.
Section 3 of the 14th amendment. It's in the constitution. This Isn't just random fuckery, he incited a violent mob to try to overthrow the government, therefore he is ineligible for office. Because no shit, but ALSO because it's written into the rules of the country.
Read section 3 for me please. Tell me where it says the states can take it upon themselves to decide to absolve. It does say insurrectionists would be inelligible for office but its not up to the state to decide that.
But either way, shouldnt he be charged with insurrection before you make decisions like these? Literally proving his point that they will try any way to get him off the ballot, legal or not. I wonder why other states like Minnesota and Michigan refused to take him off the ballot...
Again, the Colorado court ruled that section 3 is self-executing. That's a thing, whether you like it or not. I suggest you Google the term.
Explain how someone can be labeled as "traitor of the union" in only certain states. Explain how only 1 state in the union can come to a conclusion that a person falls under self execution of a certain statute within the constitution.
Maybe don't try to overthrow the government, mmk?
Back in the day, pro-life people set up fake abortion clinics used to trick women - delaying their "appointments", forcing them to look at ultrasounds and not having people that could, you know, perform abortions. Democrats rightly passed a bunch of laws that forced any abortion clinic to, you know, perform abortions.
Then the republicans retaliated. They started passing ridiculous requirements - like going to the clinics and measuring door sizes then passing laws saying that doors need to be larger than what they had; then up-ing the ante by requiring "abortion reversing drugs" (that didn't exist) should women want to stop mid abortion.
Should Trump be disqualified enough to loose, look to Republicans to start passing ridiculous disqualification criteria. Supported BLM once? Well, BLM rioted once, so that was an insurrection and thus you are now disqualified from ever holding office. In fact, look for this happening anyways. Cause if a republican is in power somewhere, under their logic it is unconstitutional to challenge them.