this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2024
456 points (97.5% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2206 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
456
Permanently Deleted (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
 

Excerpt:

It’s extremely difficult to square this ruling with the text of Section 3 [of the Fourteenth Amendment]. The language is clearly mandatory. The first words are “No person shall be” a member of Congress or a state or federal officer if that person has engaged in insurrection or rebellion or provided aid or comfort to the enemies of the Constitution. The Section then says, “But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each house, remove such disability.”

In other words, the Constitution imposes the disability, and only a supermajority of Congress can remove it. But under the Supreme Court’s reasoning, the meaning is inverted: The Constitution merely allows Congress to impose the disability, and if Congress chooses not to enact legislation enforcing the section, then the disability does not exist. The Supreme Court has effectively replaced a very high bar for allowing insurrectionists into federal office — a supermajority vote by Congress — with the lowest bar imaginable: congressional inaction.

This is a fairly easy read for the legal layperson, and the best general overview I've seen yet that sets forth the various legal and constitutional factors involved in today's decision, including the concurring dissent by Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Theprogressivist@lemmy.world 25 points 8 months ago (2 children)
[–] sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Doesn't that put the 14th and 5th in conflict? I made the assumption that due process (5th) was assumed/required when the 14th was written.

[–] MonsiuerPatEBrown@reddthat.com 24 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

being disqualified from an office is not covered by the 5th amendment

people under 35 are not being held out of office of the president for some crime.

[–] treefrog@lemm.ee 10 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

It's a civil matter, not a criminal one.

Requiring congress to vote to not allow him to run is legally the same as requiring congress to vote to not let allow a 5 year old to run. Neither Trump nor the 5 year old should have to be proven ineligible They're simply not, under the law as written.

SCOTUS are a bunch of political hacks and they should be charged with aiding and abetting an insurrectionist.

[–] hydrospanner@lemmy.world -2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

So... what's to stop a Texas or a Mississippi or a Florida from deciding that Biden has participated in an insurrection, and requiring no conviction, uses this as grounds for removal from the ballot in November?

As much as I want Trump off ballots and believe he's an insurrectionist, it's important to remember that anything that can be done to hamper his chances that requires no (or a low bar) legal framework can also be done to help his chances.

If a court in Colorado can sit down and decide he's off the ballot because of their opinions, and that decision is enforceable and unassailable, then we're establishing that a state court can strike any name from any ballot because they say so.

With that precedent, I would fully expect states with GOP leadership to appoint judges who would then find reasons to call some aspect of Biden's presidency an insurrection (in a similar vein as the Mayorkas impeachment), and remove him from their state's ballot.

[–] Theprogressivist@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

So are we going to keep kowtowing to Fascists?

[–] thesporkeffect@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Literally nothing. If they were able to they would do it already, in several cases they are kind of half-assedly trying. Mutually assured destruction isn't the principle of operation when one side is generally acting in good faith and the other side is actively pulling the copper out of the walls.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 4 points 8 months ago

The thing keeping them from doing that is they need some form of proof.

Nothing is stopping anyone from just lying about everything, except other people who refuse to go along with the lie. All social systems are inherently backed by community intolerance of dishonesty.