283
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] EnderWi99in@kbin.social 40 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

The Constitution itself would suggest he's already barred from running. I am just hoping someone takes this up and actually challenges it in the courts well ahead of time. Disqualification comes the moment you're even brought to trial on sedition charges. This was incorporated language following the Civil War as there otherwise would have been too many people to disqualify individually through the litigation process ahead of future elections.

This article does a good job explaining this provision within the 14th Amendment: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/trump-jan-6-insurrection-conservatives.html

[-] thesprongler@lemmy.world 46 points 3 years ago

They cherry-pick the Constitution more than the Bible. That doesn't mean anything to them.

[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 11 points 3 years ago

The corrupt supreme court has literally ruled that part of the text of the second amendment is the absolute unchallengable law of the land and another part just doesn't count. They don't just pick the cherries, they pit them as well.

[-] MorrisonMotel6@lemm.ee 11 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

I am just hoping someone takes this up and actually challenges it in the courts well ahead of time.

I personally know someone working to file suit against the state AG to bar trump from the ballot in their state, so there are things going on. Whether they're successful or not is anyone's guess.

My guess is "no, they won't be." The 14th may in fact bar someone from holding office, however, it's my personal belief the 5th and the 14th both require them to be convicted of said offenses to first trigger the bar

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 10 points 3 years ago

The 14th may in fact bar someone from holding office, however, it's my personal belief the 5th and the 14th both require them to be convicted of said offenses to first trigger the bar.

When the 14th amendment was passed, it was interpreted quite broadly to mean anyone who was involved in the Confederacy, in any capacity. It had nothing to do with any conviction. And in 1872, Congress passed an "amnesty act" limiting the restrictions to politicians and military officers, implying that even grunts in the Confederate army were deemed disqualified until the act passed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnesty_Act

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 6 points 3 years ago

The 14th also contains the due process clause which would seem to require some form of court process before precluding anyone from participating in their right to seek office.

Not that I like it at the moment, but it’s there

this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2023
283 points (96.4% liked)

politics

31414 readers
4246 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 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.
  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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

• 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS