this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2023
973 points (96.7% liked)

politics

19096 readers
3368 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
 

Prominent conservative legal scholars are increasingly raising a constitutional argument that 2024 Republican candidate Donald Trump should be barred from the presidency because of his actions to overturn the previous presidential election result.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] neptune@dmv.social 124 points 1 year ago (4 children)

If only conservatives listened to scholars. Then they might consider a) the intent of the constitution and b) the practical implications of nominating someone so unfit. Alas.

[–] grizzledgrizzly@sh.itjust.works 51 points 1 year ago

everyone knows scholars lead to education and education leads to a “woke” populace that doesn’t put up with this bullshit. gotta keep everyone dumb as bricks …

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 39 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If only conservatives listened to scholars

Then they wouldn't be conservatives. Academia and reality are famous for having left wing bias.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SlopppyEngineer@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"If you're ignoring the constitution, it also means others see the second amendment as null and void."

Maybe that gets their attention.

[–] agressivelyPassive@feddit.de 10 points 1 year ago

No, you see, for conservatives, laws are only valid insofar they support them. Laws are for the outgroup.

[–] ikapoz@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago

Lol. They absolutely do listen to scholars, and just like any other political group, they act on what they say when it’s convenient.

Federalist society is covering its bets here - putting up sone legal footholds for old establishment conservatism to use if they become handy - while doing so in such a way they don’t put themselves on the outs too unforgivably if Trump and his ilk weasel this way through this mess like they have so many times before.

[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 103 points 1 year ago (40 children)

It's absolutely insane that it's even up for fucking debate.

load more comments (40 replies)
[–] Bigmodirty@lemmy.world 79 points 1 year ago (5 children)

“No shit” - the rest of the sane world.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] 0Empty0@lemmy.world 52 points 1 year ago

Never forget, Hitler was part of a literal failed coup and imprisoned, and STILL was able to run for political offices. Insane.

[–] PetDinosaurs@lemmy.world 50 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Sure, but we shouldn't need a legal argument.

We only need a reasonable electorate.

[–] flossdaily@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago

We shouldn't need a legal argument, but we do.

And we certainly do not have a reasonable electorate.

[–] yacht_boy@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We have a reasonable electorate, inasmuch as Trump has no chance of ever winning the popular vote and never did. What we don’t have is a rational electoral system where all votes are equal.

[–] morphballganon@mtgzone.com 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

We have a reasonable electorate

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. Trump got something like 74,000,000 votes.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TwoGems@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago
[–] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 36 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I said it after the weak jan 6 fallout and I'll say it again: if Trump is allowed to run for president it doesn't mean our democracy is in danger.

The very idea of his candidacy is farcical, proof that the rule of law is no longer breaking but broken; proof that our government and the tenets of democracy are in fact dead in the us.

[–] oohgodyeah@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

I found the original Atlantic article better written: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/donald-trump-constitutionally-prohibited-presidency/675048/

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

[–] Skyhighatrist@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If you want that block quote to format correctly, don't indent the >. That way it will turn out like this, instead of a single line that can't fit on the screen without scrolling (some mobile clients like Sync, probably show it alright, but the web client certainly doesn't.):

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 24 points 1 year ago

Trump doesn’t follow the constitution, nor is he held to its standards by those who have the authority to force him to. This is a non-starter.

At this point it should be illegal for him to even run.

[–] keeb420@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm thinking it increasingly likely that those with the power to stop him will do nothing. As evidenced by the traitors still being in Congress.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RHSJack@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Legal scholars VS 49% of Americans, most of whom can't read a coloring book. One guess who is going to vote for the orange turd anyway.

[–] Heikki@lemm.ee 19 points 1 year ago (9 children)

A little less than half the population doesn't vote. So, it is more like 26% of Americans.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] t_var_s@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 year ago (3 children)

In practice, it goes eventually to the Supreme Court which, like the Republican Party, has been Trumpified and therefore will see no problem, case closed.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 13 points 1 year ago

I think the trick is going to be, based on the other guy who got disqualified for 1/6, is that someone actually has to challenge the nomination. It's not something that happens automatically.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judge-removes-local-official-engaging-jan-insurrection/story?id=89463597

"The decision came in a lawsuit brought by a group of New Mexico residents represented by the government accountability group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and other lawyers."

[–] nucleative@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

It's a good thing that it is very difficult to stop somebody from running for office.

The act of running for office, or more accurately the act of the people to chose whom represents them, should not be easy to take away.

In banana republics the new guy or the guy with the most power at the moment regularly uses tactics to stop their opponents in the courts. Sometimes the charges are legitimate, but sometimes they are totally fabricated.

Take for example the case of Pita, 42 years old, the leader of the move forward party in Thailand. His party swept the recent election and by many accounts average Thai people see his ideas as the most welcome path forward. Yet the old guys and their friends, who were part of the coup 6-7 years ago, are still in power. They have been able to completely shut Pita's party down in the courts, and despite the people having made a choice by voting, they, will not get the government they wanted.

If there was another political party in the USA that was more successful than Trump's at breaking the laws, and the American courts were to set a precedent that some opponents can't run for office given legal charges, I'm afraid the risk of politicians looking to defeat their opponents in court would become much more common than trying to defeat them in the polls.

[–] EnderWi99in@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

I agree with this, but can we stop referring to every rigged democratic system and autocratic government as a Banana Republic?

It just makes people posting look less knowledgeable about government and politics because it's meaning is tied to something very specific that doesn't apply to your overall well thought out comment.

Thailand is not an example of a Banana Republic and neither is the US, nor could it ever be, as it's not a country tied to very limited export of natural resources.

[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, I mean. There was that one time we overthrew the incumbent monarchy of Hawaii and annexed it so we could grow sugar cane on it.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Okay but repeatedly and blatantly trying to subvert democracy should mean that you don't get to participate in democracy anymore for the same reason that you should be banned from a chess tournament if you kick the board over and pull out a gun the first time someone puts you into check.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Heikki@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Let him destroy the GOP before you bar him. Thats thing has fot to go

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (4 children)

That mission is pretty well accomplished. DeSatan is being pummeled by a Mouse, and Trump will run as an independent and split the vote if he doesn't get the GOP nomination

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] sycamore@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Increasingly? The article should have a graph.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago

His people will still vote for him, even if he's legally barred from the job.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 7 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Prominent conservative legal scholars are increasingly raising a constitutional argument that 2024 Republican candidate Donald Trump should be barred from the presidency because of his actions to overturn the previous presidential election result.

The latest salvo came Saturday in The Atlantic magazine, from liberal law professor Laurence Tribe and J. Michael Luttig, the former federal appellate judge and a prominent conservative who’s become a strong critic of Trump’s actions after the election.

They and others base their arguments on a reading of part of the 14th Amendment, a post-Civil War provision that excludes from future office anyone who, previously, as a sworn-in public official, “engaged in insurrection or rebellion … or [had] given aid or comfort to the enemies” of the government.

The law professors argued current and former officeholders who took part in supporting or planning the efforts to overturn the election for Trump should also be “stringently scrutinized” under the Constitution should they seek bids for future public office.

The pair also looked at the historical intentions of this section of the 14th Amendment, which barred Confederates after the Civil War from holding office again, because if they were to be allowed, the US would never be able to engage in “effective ‘reconstruction’ of the political order” and newly freed formerly enslaved people wouldn’t be properly protected.

Previously, advocacy groups contested the ability of Republican members of Congress Marjorie Taylor Green and Madison Cawthorn to be ballot candidates in 2022 because of the 14th Amendment and their vocal support of the Capitol rioters.


The original article contains 882 words, the summary contains 255 words. Saved 71%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

load more comments
view more: next ›