- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
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.
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.
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.
I think he means that wealthy people get the same treatment as those in politics.
What? No. Or at least, “not quite” depending on how you meant that.
Wealthy people are given the same passes as politicians. Both are treated better than the rest of us. The criminal justice system exists almost exclusively to punish the second category.
Just saw this reply, but yea that’s exactly what I was interpreting you as saying.
It wasn’t an either/or situation. So what exactly am I wrong about?
You literally ended your comment with “only if you’re in politics.”
Relax, though. We’re all on the same side here. I upvoted your original post. I just wanted it to be clear that wealthy people are also immune. They are also often rewarded for their misdeeds after they hire a PR team to spin things.
huh ?
If you’re wealthy, you don’t need to be a politician to be above the law.
I hereby officially declare Donald J. Trump ineligible to hold office, under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.
There, I fucking did it. Challenge me in court, you orange bastard.
When the federalist society is involved, in any capacity, you have to pause and see the bigger picture. A key player in/around that org is leonard leo. If you’re not aware, Leo is in and around the stories of all of the conservative justices on the Supreme Court - including being a key facilitator in the recent overt corruption stories with thomas and alito (he’s also the name that funnels money to “ginny” thomas, clarence thomas’ batshit insane, Jan 6th supporting wife.
So this (from the article) is likely closer to the actual point of them publishing, to sow doubt and discord:
“But as a matter of politics, encouraging state election officials to go rogue and kick Trump off the ballot is a recipe for disaster. And that disconnect, between what the law says and the practical barriers to implementing it, speaks to some deep problems in American democracy that led to Trump’s insurrection in the first place.”
They want that chaos. These aren’t your friends and allies.
If they get the Trump ruled out, they can start claiming all dems engage in insurrection and have the supreme court uphold it.
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.
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.
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 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?
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.
This is a coping mechanism. They have to believe there’s a reason for their suffering, so they invent a plan that’s happening behind the scenes that they’ll only understand at some vague time in the future.
For the first hundred thousand or so years of human existence, this was fine, and helped keep us from losing our shit while developing our civilization.
Now? It’s highly detrimental to our ability to cope with reality.
Therapy and good friends are where it’s at.
There is no greater plan. Sometimes shit just happens and you’ve got to deal with it to move on. That’s not something to be afraid of. That’s just life.
Perhaps one of the most utterly retarded constitutional arguments possible
I definitely don’t want the guy to run, but allowing the government to decide who is allowed to run for a third of the government is a dangerous thing
Allowing people to run for president who have a history of attempting to subvert democracy is decidedly more dangerous. Only a few specific crimes bar you from office and they are for good reason.
I agree. Germany shouldn’t have banned the NSDAP. It was absolutely unfair! It was only one tenny tiny bit of treason. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to hold office again?
/s
