this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2023
289 points (97.7% liked)

politics

18672 readers
4627 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
289
Activists want to disqualify Trump from ballot in key states under 14th Amendment (thehill.com)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Two civil rights organizations are launching a campaign to pressure state governments to disqualify former President Trump from appearing on ballots in 2024.

The groups say secretaries of state are empowered by the 14th amendment to bar Trump from running for office because of the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection.

Starting Sunday, Mi Familia Vota and Free Speech for People will stage a week of rallies and banner drops outside the offices of the secretaries of state of California, Oregon, Colorado and Georgia.

top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 52 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The argument is "PReSiDenT isn'T mEntIoNeD sPeCiFIcALLy!!1!". Does President take an oath? Are they "elected to office"? Then yeah, the President is an officer.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

POTUS definitely qualifies as an office!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

I like the enthusiasm, but the easy legal argument here is that he was never convicted of any of these crimes. I don’t think there’s a single justice who would entertain this notion without that backing.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It pains me to say this, but in an effort to break up the group think, remember, he hasn’t been convicted of anything yet. If we really believe in due process and innocent till proven guilty, until he is tried and convicted, these petitions have no merit.

All that being said, justice delayed is justice denied, so we should be looking for court reforms to make this whole process move faster, while still being a fair as humanly possible.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

You're 100% correct. One of the goals of this community is for members to see all sides of politics, not agree with them, but to be exposed to it for better understanding. Now there is a lot of evidence against Trump in this matter and it's tough to temper your personal bias towards him. That said he hasn't been convicted yet.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The article says it may not disqualify him regardless, but I don't think from the text that he needs to be found guilty in a court of law of engaging in insurrection. This may sound like quibbling, but it's always quibbling when it comes to the Constitution.

That clause bars from a series of public offices people who “having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.”

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Again, just looking at the legal side of things, trying to remove all personal bias:

The question becomes “was Jan 6th an ‘insurrection’, a ‘rebellion’ or a ‘riot’?” While judges have described it as an insurrection from the bench, there have been no charges of insurrection brought against anybody involved so far. The charges include destruction of property, assault, and interfering with an official proceeding, but no charges of insurrection.

Until someone is charged with insurrection or rebellion, legally speaking, it was maybe a “riot”, which, strictly reading the constitution, is not disqualifying for public office.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

The Oath Keepers were charged with sedition.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

Disqualify Republicans in general that meet that criteria. Look at these guys:

https://archive.is/dAnTm

These 16 Republican congressmembers helped Trump try to overturn the 2020 election

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Honestly, I think we need to keep him on, especially if DeSantis is running. That way, the conservative vote is split and the Left wins.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Trump voters with either not vote or write in Trump no matter what.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

As the way it should be 😂. They're too stupid to realize that voting Trump no matter what in this election is a loss.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This should have been started on January 7th.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

I'm not sure you can legally do it until he is convicted in court, but more power to states that push forward.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As we all know, he didn't attend the insurrection himself (he wanted to go but was denied by his driver, who he then attempted to choke). So the "aid or comfort" bit is the only relevant part. He never aided the traitors (you can hear traitors whine that Trump never pardoned them). Did he comfort them?

"We love you."

Probably not enough for this to stick.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

I don't think you've read about the concept of "but for" in the law. Trump's speech, and the lies he spread before and after the insurrection, are the reason the march on the capitol happened. Take him out of the equation and Giuliani, Powell, Flynn, etc. all have no reason to play their roles in the plot. Could it have happened without his approval and participation? Nobody else was president at the time, so his refusal to partake would have kiboshed the effort immediately, meaning it couldn't have continued without him, meaning it wouldn't have happened "but for" his involvement. He's even admitted to his intent, at the time and after, being to hold on to power. It's an airtight case.