• Varyk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    130
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    He is guilty of insurrection and there’s a phone call of him committing direct electoral fraud.

    It’s very reasonable and within legal precedent for voters not to want someone committed to being a dictator and guilty of insurrection on a ballot.

    • alvvayson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      74
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Also, the constitution seems to require it.

      You can’t just ignore the constitution, even if you disagree or find it inconvenient.

      It’s the supreme law of the land and it must be followed.

      Otherwise, California might as well send 10 senators to Washington. That would be fair, compared to Wyoming. And since we are ignoring the Constitution, what’s an extra Senator or 8 between friends?

      • IHeartBadCode@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        But that then begs the question, which court establishes that? Because in the Colorado sense, three different courts made determination on the matter. And Article I Section 3 Clause 7 of the Constitution seems to imply that there is a difference between the political ramifications and the criminal ramifications of acts. While impeachment is established in Article I of the Constitution as being vested for the President as the House to decide and the Senate to adjudicate. Nothing in the 14th, Section 3 seems to delegate the political ramifications to any one group.

        So Trump isn’t guilty criminally of insurrection, but the 14th doesn’t seem to indicate that you absolutely need a criminal indictment to carry out the political aspects of section 3. Colorado’s determination isn’t robbing him of life and liberty, just of his qualifications for political office.