It shouldn't be a "longshot". The language of the 14th Amendment is very clear & only a high paid lawyer could possibly think otherwise.
this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2023
227 points (98.3% liked)
News
23266 readers
3513 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
Yeah they're playing directly into the narrative of the right. If it's a "longshot" or "shock victory", then it can easily be blamed on "activist judges", and therefore ignored as political or a witch hunt. It's not a "longshot". It's a plain text reading of the US Constitution. And its not a "shock victory", or a "strategy". It's not a fucking "victory" at all that we're in this disgusting mess. It's unprecedented because what Trump did IS UNPRECEDENTED. No one is winning in this situation.
I fucking hate 21st century journalists.
Probably because most of those mainstream media journalists are owned by their billionaire, corporate, conservative masters.
The untested legal gambit is a last-ditch effort to bar the candidacy of an ex-president who ~~remains popular with his base~~ instigated an insurrection against the nation and constitution he swore to uphold.
FIFY...his popularity is not the issue here. It never was. It's about actions he took, and what the law says happens at this point. I don't care how much his base loves him. We can see that even today, after all the history we have, people still support Hitler. People are fucking idiots, but that's not illegal. Inciting an insurrection is, however.
Yeah, this article misses the main point in its section on Does Section 3 apply to Trump? Was Jan 6th an insurrection? And if so, did Trump incite it? That’s all that matters. This is a law on the books and has been for some time. The angle that the law shouldn’t apply because voters should have the right to vote no matter what is not the question and is a straw man argument.
'A rarely used provision' that's because violent traitorous insurrection doesn't really happen that much nowadays.
This shows a sympathetic conservative patron over at BBC to use such weak language.
Nothing to worry about if he gets elected. He was clear that he won't be a dictator "except on day one."
Murder is popular, just look how many people are doing it ;)
His popularity is an issue, just not in the way the article suggests. If Trump wasn't popular enough to be elected, this whole exercise would be unnecessary.
It is rarely used, because we didn't have outright traitors except during the civil war. The amendment was created exactly for this, and should also be applied to all those politicians that were involved on January 6th.
"The strategy involves trying to block the fire from burning down the house by invoking a rarely used household device - a fire extinguisher - that bars small fires from becoming very large fires"
Christ - in what world should someone who legitimately tried to pull an insurrection/coup on the country - something that already should've instantly made them an enemy of the country - get to run for its highest office?
It's ridiculous that this even has to be a "longshot legal bid" - it should literally just be ticking a box!
When following and enforcing the law is a "plan". I don't care for how conspiratorial the title it aha but the ends justify the means 😁
Trump complains about being disqualified.
Also Trump:
How a state elects is clearly a state issue in the constitution and has been upheld as such except in clear violations