729
The Democrats must become an anti-establishment party | Robert Reich
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2024
729 points (97.3% liked)
politics
31069 readers
2450 users here now
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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
"TRUMP SHOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT"
I agree. But in fact "should not" is a question of law and despite your assertion that somehow removing him is not sacrificing the rule of law, there is no law that says Trump is ineligible to serve as president. I'd like there to be some rules disqualifying him and a bunch of other people, but alas there isn't.
Go ahead, find the law that says Trump is ineligible and describe how you might defend that in court.
"The disqualification clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prevents public officials who engage in treason from holding a future public office."
https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment14/annotation15.html#:~:text=The%20disqualification%20clause%20of%20the,holding%20a%20future%20public%20office.
Yes I am aware that the Supreme Court let him stay on the ballot when they had the chance to rule on this, but that's a single ruling, not a law, and in point of fact not even Trump's own lawyers argued that he was not a traitor--they persuaded the Court he appointed to invent a technicality that has no basis in the actual amendment, nor any law, nor legal precedent.
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/05/trump-supreme-court-insurrection-ruling-election
The silver lining here should be that the same Court also gave Biden the immunity he would need to step in and use the Executive branch to apply any the "checks and balances" needed to restore rule of law when all other branches fail, because that is the way our democracy is designed to work, yet Biden won't do that, and so US citizens can say goodbye to having any form of separation of powers at all.
"public officials who engage in treason"
Did Trump engage in treason? Article III of our constitution says:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
Trump, sadly, was never on trial for treason much less convicted of it. So like it or not (very much not!) Trump was never tried for crimes that would disqualify him from being elected president. Biden upheld the rule of law and adhered to our constitution.
I don't like it but that's the way it is.