Doesn’t matter. This is America where things like that are ignored. This is how people like Clarence Thomas can keep their job. Corruption and criminality are rewarded in America. But only if you’re in politics.
this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2023
465 points (95.0% liked)
politics
19097 readers
4089 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
Seriously anyone remember the issue with Emoluments? They were specifically banned in the constitution, and the Government was sued over it, and then the Supreme court sat on it until Trump was no longer president and then the supreme ruled it moot. Republicans will not play by the rules.
The issue we have is that the checks for a bad actor are impeachment and elections. The founders thought "surely, elected officials would put country over party". They were wrong there, so now impeachment is ineffective.
The founders thought "surely, voters wouldn't elect an immortal leader". Again, dead wrong.
Voting is really the only effective check at this point, which is why Republicans try to undermine it at every turn. Vote in every election!
I hope you mean immoral which while being really bad would not be as bad as an immortal ruler.
I strongly disagree.
Most presidents have lived, at most, a few decades after the conclusion of their regime. I believe Carter is now the champion in that category, at 43 years. This is the upper bounds on their consequences. As far as we know about life after death, anything that jumps the track after that is no longer a problem for them. This creates a tunnel vision-- it's very hard for mortal leaders to consider "this has a payback or cost structure over 50, 100, 500 years."
On the other hand, an immortal is stuck here. He'll be the one with searing lung pain for millennia until the ecosystem heals from a fossil-fuel binge, he'll be watching any century-scale projects he invested in crumble as society destabilizes around him. This would impact his goals and decision making process-- his self interest would favour stewardship and long-term stability.
TBH, I really want to see some sort of take on "Vampire runs for President on a pro-ecology platform." It's no zanier than anything else in this season's Crunchyroll catalogue.
If only we could vote out a Supreme Court member. But ironically those that sit on the highest court in the country are held accountable by nobody, and serve for life.
They are held accountable by Congress. But that assumes that Congress isn't complicit.
Sounds like a couple branches fell off the tree.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Or if you own a billion dollar corporation. Then it's encouraged and just good business!
Just stop being poor, easy clap
You left out "and religion"
Same thing.
You are free to sue to keep his name off the ballot. I don't think a court would side with you until he has been duly convicted, but we can hope.
Wrong. Wealthy people get the same treatment usually.
Yes. An exception would seem to be Bernie Madoff. But it wasn't the amount of money.
He had to be punished because he ripped off other rich people.
load more comments
(2 replies)
huh ?
load more comments
(2 replies)
Two conservative legal scholars, members of the Federalist Society in good standing, have just published an audacious argument: that Donald Trump is constitutionally prohibited from running for president, and that state election officials have not only the authority but the legal obligation to prevent his name from appearing on the ballot.
Spicy!
Wow, the federalist society has turned on him? Maybe that's not new, but it sure is crazy how much conservatives with power regret using him.
If he wins the nomination, they will explain that they were mistaken.
This will 1,000,000% be a thing mark my words. Conservatives are twister Grandmasters. Happily bending themselves into inhuman and unsurvivable knots
It's not a complex twist or something. It's really, really simple: They're lying.
You can ignore almost everything a conservative says. They're lying. To see what they think, look at what they are doing.
They say, "We want to stop government waste!" while ushering in unprecedented levels of corruption.
They say, "We believe in freedom of speech!" while leading the charge for the most overt, fascist, restrictive policies in decades.
They say, "Law and order!" while electing people involved in multiple federal criminal trials.
Look to what they do, not what they say.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
I would love to see it happen but will remain pessimistic. It seems all the wealthy people get away with whatever they want.
It is important to note that trump still has the right to due process under s2 of the 14th, and will probably be the grounds for dismissal if there isn’t some sort of court hearing.
The NM case probably sets some precedent saying he doesn’t have to be convicted …. But I have no confidence in SCROTUS
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Baude and Paulsen’s paper, set to be published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, focusing on plain-language readings on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and the way its key terms were used in political discussion around the time of enactment.
If this interpretation is correct, then the legal case against Trump is fairly straightforward — all established by facts in public reporting, evidence from the January 6 committee, and the recent federal indictment.
Even if (let’s say) the members of a state board of elections think someone below the drinking age would make the best president in American history, the law is clear that such a person can’t hold office and thus can’t be permitted to run.
Every official involved in the US election system, from a local registrar to members of Congress, has an obligation to determine if candidates for the presidency and other high office are prohibited from running under Section 3.
Moreover, state election officials are not federal judges; the very existence of Griffin’s Case, however poorly reasoned, creates real doubt as to whether they are legally empowered to do what Baude and Paulsen are telling them they have to do.
Best case, there’s a write-in campaign to put Trump in the presidency, giving rise to a constitutional crisis if he won (since the Supreme Court would have ruled him ineligible in upholding the state officials’ actions).
I'm a bot and I'm open source!
I think, the problem is, somebody needs to challenge his elligibility in each and every state.
Like this guy:
It's not an AUTOMATIC disqualification, it still needs to be adjudicated... At least in enough states to take away 270 electoral votes.
It's not an AUTOMATIC disqualification, it still needs to be adjudicated
I might have mistaken what was written, but the scholars in the paper explicitly point out section 3 is 'self-executing'. ~Which means it does not require adjuducation.~ I was mistaken, see comment below.
If it happened before, that doesn't mean it was necessary.
"Self-executing" there means that the Constitutional prohibition doesn't require Congress to pass a law on the subject.
Some Constitutional provisions do require Congressional action to take effect. For instance, the income tax is authorized by the Sixteenth Amendment, but the amendment does not itself create an income tax; it just tells Congress that it may do so.
(The original Constitution did not allow an income tax, because it expected the federal government to fund itself from tariffs and from tax assessments from the states, which were required to be proportional to population.)
I realized this on the 6th. It's the first thing that crossed my mind when I knew what was happening. I'm not a legal scholar; I'm a mathematician, so I'm wondering how it took so long for this to happen.
I think this would be a very hard thing to enforce safely, at least in the context the lawyers say the 14th amendment is actionable. If someone like a governor or hell a county clerk were to raise an objection and attempt to prevent Trump's name from appearing on the ballots, they might have the authority to do so, but there would be challenges all the way up the chain, and pressure from voters and civilians to keep his name up, likely through threat of violence if we follow the same pattern as the 2020 elections and the insurrection.
At this point, do we risk the possibility of Trump getting a second term, or take that possibility off the table but put ourselves in another possible insurrection attempt?
The smart move? Register Republican and vote for third party candidates en masse in the primary. Then throw your vote to whichever useless slug lands in the D column on your general ticket.
I wish i didn't agree with this so thoroughly.
There are already suits being prepared to send to states in order to disqualify Trump from appearing on the ballot, on the basis of the 14th Amendment, Section 3. Such a suit was partially successful in New Mexico, against a county commissioner who was convicted of trespassing for entering the Capitol building on Jan 6, 2021.
In that case, the court found that A) Jan 6 was, for the purposes of 14A S3, an "insurrection," and B), that the defendant in the suit engaged in that insurrection. The election occurred while the case was awaiting appeal, and the defendant lost, so the case is moot.
However, that Part B above is informative, in that it is most certainly not required that a defendant of such a case have been convicted of "insurrection or rebellion," only that they have engaged in the same. Where there was an insurrection, did the defendant contribute to that insurrection? Where the answer is yes, the person (who has previously held office and sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution) is disqualified from office. There is no requirement for any other legislation or legal case.
At this point, do we risk the possibility of Trump getting a second term, or take that possibility off the table but put ourselves in another possible insurrection attempt?
The possibility of Trump gaining the presidency again is more likely than there being a significantly successful insurrection or rebellion in response to his being disqualified from the ballot for the 2024 election. Furthermore, Trump's candidacy is currently all but certain - at present, he will be on the ballot in all fifty states and various territories - and the election is closer in time than any possible public turmoil in response to it. The greater likelihood of Trump being put back in office, and the nearer proximity in time of that event, means that we should be addressing that possibility, and not second guessing based on a "what if?" prediction.
Back to the process of applying 14A S3. Application does not require any court filing. Surely, a judicial order would carry more "legitimacy" with certain people, but the disqualification just is, in the same way that the disqualification for the office of president for people under age 35 just is. States have their own various processes for determining who is qualified to run for office, and who has the authority to make those decisions. Court cases are not necessary.
Practically speaking, Trump would only need to be disqualified in a handful of swing states - Georgia, Wisconsin, Arizona, Michigan all come to mind - for him to be unable to reach 270 electoral votes.
he's gonna be barred from walking around freely in my Republic soon enough
I think he's ineligible for office for so many reasons but this argument is pretty weak. It just won't go anywhere other than Lincoln Project masturbation.
Why is it weak?
It relies on everyone agreeing that Trump's actions equates to insurrection. So it's assuming the conclusion.
He isn't even being charged with the crime of "insurrection." There are legal definitions of the term and he hasn't met them, according to rhe Special Counsel at least. So it's extremely hard to make the case that his actions in particular amount to disqualifying actions legally, for him.
There's easy evidence that he shouldn't be president, you just shouldn't vote for him in the primary or the general, but the bar for saying he is currently legally barred from running is so high and the argument essentially assumes the conclusion. If you assume that yes he did commit insurrection, he is barred...but how does one say that is legally the case if he has not been found guilty of that in a court of law?
His actions are covered under 14a s3 without a conviction based on this one part:
given aid or comfort
By refusing to call in the national guard, and then promising to give pardons to all who were convicted fall under that clause
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›