this post was submitted on 15 May 2025
710 points (98.6% liked)

politics

23538 readers
2259 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett triggered fierce backlash from MAGA loyalists after forcefully questioning the Trump administration's top lawyer and voicing skepticism over ending birthright citizenship during a heated Supreme Court argument.

Since taking office, Donald Trump has pushed for an executive order to end birthright citizenship, a constitutional guarantee under the 14th Amendment that grants automatic U.S. citizenship to anyone born on American soil.

During oral arguments, Barrett confronted Solicitor General Dean John Sauer, who was representing the Trump administration, over his dismissive response to Justice Elena Kagan's concerns. Barrett sharply asked whether Sauer truly believed there was "no way" for plaintiffs to quickly challenge the executive order, suggesting that class-action certification might expedite the process.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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".

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

We didn’t see Trump break into the White House.

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".

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

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.