Maybe it's catastrophic and they'll never come back.
charonn0
joined 1 year ago
Maybe I'm not fully versed in The Troubles, but why must Irish unification be terrorism?
The 14th amendment doesn't require impeachment or criminal conviction, though. It's a completely different disqualification provision from impeachment.
For example, members of Congress cannot be impeached, but they can be disqualified under the 14th amendment. It makes no sense to roll impeachment and the 14th amendment into the same category of disqualification.
The only thing Congress can do is remove Trump's disqualification under the 14th amendment. They can't decide whether he's disqualified in the first place.
"High crimes and misdemeanors" is a term of art that refers to acts committed by a public official which, while not necessarily a crime in themselves, are a violation of public trust.
For example, a president that accepted a foreign title of nobility without Congressional consent would have committed a high crime, but they couldn't be hauled into a criminal court for it.
This will be challenged in court and almost certainly be struck down on 1st amendment grounds. Targeting a specific organization like that is a pretty flagrant violation, but I wouldn't expect the supporters of this bill to be familiar with the US Constitution.
Being convicted of a crime doesn't disqualify anyone; people have run for President from prison. And most of the people who attacked Congress on Jan. 6 would not be disqualified for it even if they are convicted of a crime for it.
Disqualification is not a criminal punishment. It's not a crime to be 34 years old, for example, or to have been born in another country. But those are still disqualifications, and they are and always have been enforced by the states.
Impeachment is expressly not a criminal procedure. It can't result in prison or fines, nor can it can't be pardoned by the President.
On the contrary, Congress is expressly forbidden from deciding whether someone is guilty of a crime.
That is what is known as "sarcasm". I wasn't sincerely calling for violence against the Supreme Court, but rather drawing attention to their hypocrisy.
Consider the fact that there is more than one grounds for disqualification. For president, there are also age and naturalization disqualifications.
Who do you think has been determining those all these years?
Oh, you're right. I'm well versed enough in Star Trek to have already known that. For some reason I didn't actually think about the episode.