I don't want him to be president again and I don't think he will be, but this just isn't the case, and you're not going to get a favorable SCOTUS decision on it. It's an interesting idea to write a law school paper about, not a real legal theory.
this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2023
282 points (94.6% liked)
News
23261 readers
4702 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Except that it's already been used to keep Jan 6ers off the ballot.
It's got teeth. How much? I dunno. But Trump doesn't necessarily need to be disqualified for the party to step in and nominate someone else.
I think a lot of Republicans would welcome the excuse.
That article won't load for me, but I assume they've been convinced. While I believe it's obvious he's guilty, this would set a very dangerous precedent. We can't start treating people like they're guilty before a verdict. Although the wealthy seem to get the benefit of the doubt fat more effectively after charges are filed, but that's a whole nother debate.
Yep, unfortunately the only thing that matters is the current SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution.
At the end of the day, most Supreme Courts would be extremely reluctant to disqualify someone and would prefer to leave it to the voters. I think even an extremely liberal court would rule the same unless they were just being nakedly political the way the conservative Justices seem to.
Trump needs to be defeated soundly at the voting booth. There won't be any easy resolutions where he and his fanatics just quietly disappear.
He's already been defeated soundly at the voting booth. That's why there was an insurrection.
We really should be moving to consequences part of the constitution instead giving Trump yet another chance to steal power.
Why have a law about it if you never intend to use said law?
This is just an acknowledgement that voting is maybe our most sacred right and even a very liberal court is going to be extremely reluctant to rule that the majority of the country can't vote for who they want. My (layman's) understanding is that there is enough room to argue that any court would just leave it to the voters.
Frankly, I don't care because the whole republican party is an existential threat to the nation so it's not like I'll breathe a sigh of relief if it's DeSantis instead.
It isnt a theory. Steve Calabresi, one of the founders of the Federalist Society, whom we'd think should be against this interpretation, wrote an article for Reason in support of the original paper.
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/08/10/trump-is-disqualified-from-being-on-any-election-ballots/
The core of the argument is that current context is an extremely good match for the context that created the law in the first place. They seem to believe it enough to think it should be regarded as true. For some reason...
So let's consider incentives. Why would they want to avoid a court case? Is it possible they'd lose and somehow make a radical event take place in US law?
Maybe they believe it is self-preservation in some way, to avoid a historically significant court decision going against them. Or another way, maybe theyre low key trying to somehow move on.
This may be the closest thing the Republican Party ever does to waving the white flag. They never admit defeat.
It seems like a conviction would very much help to prove what trump did. Otherwise it's just accusations.
Yeah, we really don't want state election officials individually determining who's qualified and who's not…
Trump Supporter: "What insurrection? We were fighting for freedom and Jan 06 was a peaceful protest so the rule doesn't apply"
Watch the "party of the Constitution" completely ignore that with no consequences.
Domestic terror cult that they are.
Archive link?
edit: I had no idea you could paste a paywalled article link into archive and have it strip the paywall, nice.
Probably a "side effect" of the tactic of luring in people with the first paragraph then asking for you to subscribe. Im sure that the HTML (of the full article) is probably still there, but they're hidden or covered by the "subscribe to read" elements.