politics
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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
14A S3 is also very clear, but here we are
The problem is, the people who wrote the 14th amendment didn't specify how that is supposed to be enforced.
Criminal conviction? Well trump was only convicted of a state charge of fraud, not insurrection.
Simple majority of congress? Republican congress could just ban democrats.
2/3 Supermajority of congress? It'll never pass
Supreme court? Well, a majority of them is republican.
If its too easy to invoke it, it could be weaponized against progressive candidates. They'd just declare BLM protests as "insurrection" and ban them from the ballot.
No idea why you’re getting downvoted for pointing this out. This is literally the flaw with the insurrection clause of yes 14th amendment and precisely why it wasn’t enforced. SC ruled that states don’t get to enforce it on their own authority, but failed to specify who does. If the amendment had specified an enforcement mechanism, there would be no need for interpretation.
The same way the minimum age limit for president is enforced.
So, by the supreme court?
Well, we're fucked with this conservative-ass court. They already stuck down Colorado's court ruling.
Had he actually been tried and convicted of an insurrection, that would matter.
Which, I mean, a court did find him responsible for the insurrection, but I suppose that doesn't matter to you.
I wish that were true. Not only was he not convicted of having anything to do with an insurrection, he wasn’t even charged with it. His attempt to remain in power is not the same as an attempt to overthrow the current power of the government.
https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/jack-smith-didnt-charge-donald-trump-insurrection-rcna187578
It IS true.
Anderson v. Griswold:
WAS true. If you read SCOTUS’s ruling, you’ll see they came to the same conclusion that Jack Smith made. If Trump was part of the insurrection while he was the President, then it was not an insurrection. If he was not part of it, then it was an insurrection. They determined that you can’t violently overthrow the government in which you lead.
Where does it say that a conviction is required? Self-executing.
Exactly. I'd doesn't say convicted of participating in an insurrection. It says if you participate in an insurrection you are automatically intelligible for office unless the disability is removed by congress.
The Fifth Amendment.
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury…”
Disqualification from holding office is not punishment for a crime. If it were, everyone under age 35 would have a 5th Amendment argument to make.
Try again.
Held to answer does not mean sentenced. It means held responsible, or convicted. Accusations or charges are insufficient for accountability according to the Constitution.
Otherwise, you could just accuse every President you don’t like of an insurrection and they’d immediately be removed from office.
“Held to answer” in this context, with the reference to a grand jury, is talking about criminal charges, convictions, and punishment.
Or are you suggesting that a 34 year old would have to come before a grand jury before being disqualified from the office of President?
Are you suggesting there’s logic to your argument? You can’t just say, “he was part of an insurrection” and disqualify him from office. It needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law and he must be found guilty by a jury of his peers. Otherwise, anyone could accuse a sitting President of an insurrection and they’d be removed from office. Think about it.
Guess what happened? Colorado Supreme Court found that he had participated, making him ineligible to appear on the Colorado ballot. This is appropriate, because states manage elections, that’s also written in the Constitution.
Then SCOTUS stepped in and swept that aside, is direct contradiction to the Constitution.
Their excuse was that a “patchwork” of states shouldn’t have this power. Even though they quite literally do.
So whatever squabble we’re having here is moot.
Read the link I provided. It was not considered an insurrection according to the DOJ or SCOTUS, because he was trying to remain in power rather than overthrow the existing power of the government.
Self-coups are not a new concept
I didn’t say it was. I’m saying that’s why Jack Smith did not charge him with inciting an insurrection. It was not an insurrection by definition if he was a part of it. If he was not a part of it, it could be considered one. It’s legally murky.
That's not how anything works, no.
Don’t tell me. Tell him.
https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/jack-smith-didnt-charge-donald-trump-insurrection-rcna187578
The fifth amendment doesn't apply to impeachment, nor does it in the event of ballot qualifications. Like, the 5th amendment doesn't apply to age restrictions on holding public office.
The law says,"If you engaged in insurrection, you are ineligible to hold federal office". Just like is says,"If you are under 35, you are ineligible to hold the office of President".
Correct. How do we determine that someone was involved in an insurrection? You can’t hold him accountable to the crime without conviction or adjudication. Otherwise it’s merely an accusation, and anyone could just say a person was part of an insurrection to bar them from holding office.
You watch them on TV doing it. And after you see them on TV doing it, they become unqualified for office, based on the due process afforded by the state attorney generals, and/or departments that manage who is and who isn't qualified and can be placed on a ballot, per due process.
You don't need a court to adjudicate being of improper age, do you? Certain items can be considered "prima facie"... Basically: You, and everyone else watched it happens is considered prima facie for processes like this.
We didn’t see Trump break into the White House. Unless it’s proven that he was a part of it, he’s not part of it. Innocent until proven guilty.
You need legal documentation to prove your age, yes. It must be issued by a state of federal governing body. You can’t just have your friend vouch for you.
We saw him tell his people to go do it, and the refuse to tell them to stop it.
That's called "leading an insurrection".
That could be argued as a poor decision or incompetence. You’d need to prove it in court otherwise it’s hearsay. It’s not like there’s photographic proof of him breaking into the White House.
He was literally telling them live on TV to go storm the Capitol.
That is called "prima facie": facts that speak for themselves.
And it is fully valid to use as a test in a process already codified in law: secretary of state (or similar postition) decides ballot eligibility.
I read through the entire report from Smith. He did not. He said, “March on the Capitol,” “Fight like hell,” “Show our strength,” and other similar notions, but he did not explicitly instruct them to storm or attack the Capitol building. That’s a key part of what the prosecution needed to prove in court through testimony of those in the Oval Office at the time.
He was handed a piece of paper that said they’re storming the Capitol. He crumpled it up, tossed in on the floor, and continued pressing Pence into invalidating the election results. That is incriminating, since any actions from that point on that did not include dispatching the National Guard could be seen as criminal conspiracy. But again, that needs to be proven in court.
There's a difference between being thrown in jail without a trial and... Being barred from the highest office of the country - a position of public service.
You have a right to freedom, not to a specific job
Without conviction, what is to stop anyone from simply accusing a President of participating in an insurrection and immediately having them removed from office?
Firstly, there's a difference from being barred from the election proces, and already being in office and removed from it...
So you think that someone can say “he was a part of an insurrection” the night before an election and allow the contender to automatically win?
You’re arguing semantics and completely missing the point. Conviction or adjudication is how we prove things happened. It’s how the law works.