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
Claiming to support democracy while denying due process? How BlueMAGA of you.
Article 3 of the 14th Amendment has been invoked at least 8 times in the past few centuries. Please review them and explain to me you think how Trump deserves better treatment than the previous 8 people.
Trump doesn't believe in due process. He's literally said as much.
His people don't believe in due process.
If he is allowed to get back into the white house, he will absolutely ignore every single thing preventing him from going full dictator. Due process won't matter to him, the rule of law won't matter to him, the goddamn constitution won't matter to him.
But at least you'll be able to feel smug knowing that you almost got "bluemaga" to be a thing.
It has been a thing, you not being aware of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Your entire comment is meaningless hyperbole.
The latter half may be hyperbolic ... but the former, about article 3 is fact. Cry about it all you want, it's express purpose is to stop assholes like Trump.
Section one is the preamble to all other sections of the amendment. It gives the baseline that all other sections must follow.
Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment gives Congress the power to disqualify someone who has already held a public office from holding "any office" if they participate in an "insurrection or rebellion" against the United States.
https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment14/annotation15.html
... go on...?
Not having even the basic understanding of the law? How moronic of you.
Basic understanding of law means a basic understanding of due process and how everyone is entitled to it. Not just the people you agree with. Denying due process to those you oppose makes you the same type of dictator liberals claim to hate.
Yes but you don't seem to understand that due process in this case doesn't mean he needs a criminal trial and conviction for him to be removed.
Read the 14th amendment then tell me where it mentions "convicted of insurrection" - it does not. It only mentions participation, or even supporting someone who participated.
Trump is receiving the due process as we speak right now.
If there was a waiver of due process it would be stated.
But section 14.1 of the 14th amendment reads
This precedes section 14.3 which addresses Disqualification from Holding Office. 14.1 due process precedes all other sections of the amendment to establish a requirement for due process in all other sections.
You have my upvote for actually going through the Amendment. Respect.
However, you're still ignoring the point that due process is occurring (at least in Colorado, Maine was definitely dodgy). Trump does not need to be criminally convicted of insurrection, it just needs to be decided in court that he meets the bar of being disqualified from office. The Colorado Supreme Court decided Trump should be removes from the ballot, now the US Supreme Court will decide - that is due process.
Being disqualified under 14.3 has a slightly different set of standards to meet than a criminal conviction for insurrection. Arguably he should also face a criminal charge, and a conviction would make the disqualification a sure thing.
It's a bit like civil vs criminal. If you're convicted of a crime, then the civil trial is basically a slam dunk. However, OJ famously got off on the criminal murder charge, then lost the civil trial for killing his victims. Trump being convicted of the crime of insurrection is a separate type of proceedings to removing him from the ballot for being involved with insurrection.
The amendment specifically says it's the responsibility of Congress to determine eligibility of ballot access, and it only requires a simple majority. Therefore only Congress can proceed with due process, SCOTUS is likely to rule that states do not have standing, or the state courts do not have the authority to rule on this case.
Dont get me wrong, Im not defending the POS or his actions. Ive seen him as a shady, POS, conman since the 80s. But many dems are gonna be in for quite a shock when it doesnt play out like theyve been told it will. And all the ones calling to bypass due process because its someone they oppose is insane.
Where is the part that says only Congress can decide to remove by a simple majority? My understanding is that Congress can decide to put someone back on the ballot by a 2/3 majority, but it would be the courts that decide to remove them in lawsuits filed by citizens.
I've seen it on several legal websites, but I've not found how they interpreted that.
Unfortunately the problem with "legal websites" is that they generally know enough about the law to push a message without having to provide anything to back it up.
That's not a dig at you or your opinion, just something I find frustrating.