620
Louisiana woman files suit to remove Trump from Louisiana ballot
(www.the-independent.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2023
620 points (98.4% liked)
politics
18881 readers
3459 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.
- 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.
- 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
The whole “he has to be convicted of insurrection” argument isn’t even the precedent. IANAL but Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee weren’t even tried. Presumably the people who wrote the amendment would have had insurrection trials for Confederate officers and prominent politicians if they thought it was required to ban them from holding office. (Instead, they pardoned a lot of those people.)
I mean, obviously, I’m not naive. The current SCOTUS will find a way to allow Trump to run. Originalists abandon originalism whenever it’s convenient.
Even more important, the 14th Amendment says nothing about a requirement of conviction for the person to be excluded for eligibility because of insurrection. Specifically mentioning "conviction" as a requirement is used elsewhere in the Constitution for other things (impeachment as an example), so its not on the concept is foreign to the document.
States are free to run their elections however they want, as long as they end up sending the correct number of electors to DC. You'd think the "states rights" crowd would know and support that.
The whole thing is kinda silly anyways since the primaries aren’t “real” elections. The RNC can pick any candidate they want regardless of the outcome of the primaries. They make their own rules so that can change them to whatever they want. For example because Trump has been removed from the ballot in Colorado (including as a write-in), the GOP is likely to petition the RNC to allow them to caucus, which is way less formal and more chaotic in my opinion, but is a loophole since there is no ballot.
Of course this all depends on what SCOTUS does with respect to the 14th amendment. Even that is kinda sketchy since, like you said, there have been candidates removed from ballots that were not convicted let alone even tried. Although Congress posthumously lifted the disqualification from Lee in 1975, and Davis in 1978. There was one candidate removed but he was actually convicted, a Victor Berger from Wisconsin. But even that conviction was overturned by SCOTUS and he later ran and won. I guess you could say no one really has the balls to test it properly.
The Victor Berger from Wisconsin one is so ridiculous. He engaged in no violent insurrection. But he was a socialist and published editorials. They tried to use the “given aid or comfort to the enemies” part to ban him from Congress
Honestly, I wish there had been trials and stuff during reconstruction.
This is what I am trying to find out about for myself. Does he need to be convicted of something somewhere? I was just looking for info about this yesterday and all I can find is Jack Smith and Colorado stuff. I care about 14th amendment stuff because nothing else matters.