Nonsense. Disqualifying Trump for his oath-breaking is not materially different to disqualifying a 34 year old or a foreign national.
this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2024
11 points (82.4% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7231 readers
191 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
So how does this "disqualification" take place?
The procedures are set by state elections laws.
States rights eh? Nice. I can't see how that would be a problem when we are talking about electing the president of the United States.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. State control over federal elections has always been fundamental to US federalism.
I suppose that is true. But if this is the path you and dems want to go, I could easily see swing states that have red legislatures just removing the Dem candidate from the ballot with very flimsy justification. Think states like Florida, Wisconsin, Oregon, Ohio, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, just not having the Dem candidate on the ballot ever.
In 2020 if Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Virginia didn't have Biden on the ballot, Trump wins.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_state_legislative_elections
What's your argument? That we should allow foreigners and teenagers to run for President because no-one can be trusted to enforce the requirements to run?
I could easily see swing states that have red legislatures just removing the Dem candidate from the ballot with very flimsy justification
They're going to do that anyway. There's no point in playing the appeasement game.
Pretty sure the SCOTUS can agree that he committed insurrection and the 14th amendment would bar him from holding office.
Sounds good, when SCOTUS gets on that and has a trial and makes a judgement, then and only then, should he be removed from state ballots.
scotus could just decide not to do anything at all
Ah, good old NYT. "Trump caught on film eating babies. How is this bad for Joe Biden?"
Of course the courts can disqualify him! The man already tried to overthrow the government once. The whole purpose of the insurrection clause is—you guessed it!—to stop insurrectionists from being able to hold office any longer. This would be his second time!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Intense debate has accompanied the decision by the Supreme Court to review the decision by Colorado’s highest court to bar Donald Trump from the state’s primary ballots based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — about the precise meaning of the word “insurrection,” the extent of Mr. Trump’s culpability for the events of Jan. 6 and other legal issues.
Rebel officers might well have retained strong popular support in the former Confederate states, but Section 3 prevented the rebellion from being continued by electoral means.
I count myself among those who consider Mr. Trump to be manifestly unfit to serve in any office ever again because of his actions on that day, even if he is not held criminally liable.
It’s notable in that regard, then, that impeachment — the remedy the Constitution provides for a president who violates his oath of office — does not involve the courts but the people, acting through their representatives.
Some Republican senators, including the minority leader, Mitch McConnell, effectively asked the courts to do just that during the impeachment debate.
Noah Millman (@BloggerGideon) writes the newsletter Gideon’s Substack and is the film and theater critic at Modern Age.
The original article contains 1,252 words, the summary contains 196 words. Saved 84%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!