• IronCorgi@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      88
      ·
      1 year ago

      Seriously anyone remember the issue with Emoluments? They were specifically banned in the constitution, and the Government was sued over it, and then the Supreme court sat on it until Trump was no longer president and then the supreme ruled it moot. Republicans will not play by the rules.

      • cogman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        72
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The issue we have is that the checks for a bad actor are impeachment and elections. The founders thought “surely, elected officials would put country over party”. They were wrong there, so now impeachment is ineffective.

        The founders thought “surely, voters wouldn’t elect an immortal leader”. Again, dead wrong.

        Voting is really the only effective check at this point, which is why Republicans try to undermine it at every turn. Vote in every election!

        • ScrollinMyDayAway@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          If only we could vote out a Supreme Court member. But ironically those that sit on the highest court in the country are held accountable by nobody, and serve for life.

          • aidan@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That was intentional in the design of the supreme court. It was made to be the least democratic branch of government because it was made to hold the current majority to the standards of the past. Which is what a constitution is.

        • teft@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          I hope you mean immoral which while being really bad would not be as bad as an immortal ruler.

          • HakFoo@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            I strongly disagree.

            Most presidents have lived, at most, a few decades after the conclusion of their regime. I believe Carter is now the champion in that category, at 43 years. This is the upper bounds on their consequences. As far as we know about life after death, anything that jumps the track after that is no longer a problem for them. This creates a tunnel vision-- it’s very hard for mortal leaders to consider “this has a payback or cost structure over 50, 100, 500 years.”

            On the other hand, an immortal is stuck here. He’ll be the one with searing lung pain for millennia until the ecosystem heals from a fossil-fuel binge, he’ll be watching any century-scale projects he invested in crumble as society destabilizes around him. This would impact his goals and decision making process-- his self interest would favour stewardship and long-term stability.

            TBH, I really want to see some sort of take on “Vampire runs for President on a pro-ecology platform.” It’s no zanier than anything else in this season’s Crunchyroll catalogue.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      You are free to sue to keep his name off the ballot. I don’t think a court would side with you until he has been duly convicted, but we can hope.

      • FReddit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes. An exception would seem to be Bernie Madoff. But it wasn’t the amount of money.

        He had to be punished because he ripped off other rich people.

          • Lucidlethargy
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            What? No. Or at least, “not quite” depending on how you meant that.

            Wealthy people are given the same passes as politicians. Both are treated better than the rest of us. The criminal justice system exists almost exclusively to punish the second category.

        • Lucidlethargy
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You literally ended your comment with “only if you’re in politics.”

          Relax, though. We’re all on the same side here. I upvoted your original post. I just wanted it to be clear that wealthy people are also immune. They are also often rewarded for their misdeeds after they hire a PR team to spin things.

        • Lucidlethargy
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you’re wealthy, you don’t need to be a politician to be above the law.

  • NegativeNull@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    96
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Two conservative legal scholars, members of the Federalist Society in good standing, have just published an audacious argument: that Donald Trump is constitutionally prohibited from running for president, and that state election officials have not only the authority but the legal obligation to prevent his name from appearing on the ballot.

    Spicy!

    • calabast@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wow, the federalist society has turned on him? Maybe that’s not new, but it sure is crazy how much conservatives with power regret using him.

        • Eldritch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          28
          ·
          1 year ago

          This will 1,000,000% be a thing mark my words. Conservatives are twister Grandmasters. Happily bending themselves into inhuman and unsurvivable knots

          • evatronic@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            18
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s not a complex twist or something. It’s really, really simple: They’re lying.

            You can ignore almost everything a conservative says. They’re lying. To see what they think, look at what they are doing.

            They say, “We want to stop government waste!” while ushering in unprecedented levels of corruption.

            They say, “We believe in freedom of speech!” while leading the charge for the most overt, fascist, restrictive policies in decades.

            They say, “Law and order!” while electing people involved in multiple federal criminal trials.

            Look to what they do, not what they say.

          • calabast@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think most people misunderstand what they are trying to conserve, which is power.

            • Eldritch@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes they will say that they are trying to preserve our social norms. So power. Or our tradition. So power. Or our culture. So power. There is nothing that they can give as an example that does not equate to their power or control over others.

              To which I have only one thing to say. Let other people live their lives as they see fit. And we will stop gay marrying all of you. Which is a shame because Todd was really looking forward to it. We know he’d take good care of you. But if you’re willing to let us make our own decisions. We will let you.

    • anonono@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      104
      ·
      1 year ago

      You guys should have let him win and end his second term.

      All this crap is just elevating him to martyrdom, and god forbid you actually put him in jail before the elections. This has trendously backfire so many times throughout history. 100 years are gonna pass and you will still have people being trumpists wearing maga hats.

      • DigitalTraveler42@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        54
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You’re an idiot because that was going to happen either way, as they are already a cult. We need to face the fact that Trump is the new Joseph Smith/L Ron Hubbard/Jim Jones, leading his congregation of fascists. MAGA is going to be something we’re going to be dealing with at least as long as Trump lives, if not longer.

        Four more years of Trump would have allowed him to solidify his power and end democracy in the United States, he needed to be voted out, if not more direct means of removal.

        • anonono@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          45
          ·
          1 year ago

          I may be an idiot but it’s cute that you think it cannot get worse since they “are already a cult”.

          a second term of trump now will be an order of magnitude worse.

            • Phlogiston@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              apparently we should have let him have a second term w/o the fight. and generally should let him (and his MAGA mob) do whatever they want. Clearly the mistake is to fight back – if we just let them walk all over us we’ll be better off because, i suppose, because then they won’t be forced to do something really bad to us?

              how dare we force them to be horrible!

          • Hominine@lemonine.hominine.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes, he really was going to be an honest interlocutor the second time around🤞. If only we hadn’t stolen the election and been caught; now he has to burn it all down.

            • anonono@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              29
              ·
              1 year ago

              he really was going to be an honest interlocutor the second time around

              do you really think this was what I meant? or are you just pretending?

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                No one knows what you mean because what you’re saying makes no sense. How would a delayed second term be better than a consecutive second term?

          • diablexical@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            second term of trump will be an order of magnitude worse

            How would it be worse, like more of Jan 6? Would you explain what you mean?

      • diablexical@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        should have let him win

        Actually made me laugh. Guys, democrats just need to let repubs win and not hold elected officials responsible for crimes in office, come on.

      • Elderos@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        Should have let him “win”? First off his plan was thwarted by his own party, his own staff, and his own appointed judges. Virtually all his political opponents did is critism him from a distance.

        But let’s pretend that everyone should have helped steal the election, or voted for him out of fear (yikes), you really think this guy was ever gonna leave the white house, even after a 2nd term?

        He’s been hinting at being president for life a few times, and he was slowly replacing all the top positions in the country by loyalist. Meanwhile, his supporters were absolutely thrilled at the idea that Ivanka should be his successors, and that we should live under the Trump dynasty. After a 2nd term he would have pulled some shit, created a crisis out of his own to justify extending his presidential powers, and if he succeeded, that would have been it. He telegraphied his every move and a lot of peolle in 2016 already knew he would not leave willingly and call the next election rigged. He telegraphied wanting to be president for life, and you can be absolutely sure that he would not have stopped at a 2nd term.

      • BassTurd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Trump as a martyr is still better than Trump as POTUS. Believing that criminals should just get out of charges because of if their station or their potential martyrdom is the biggest issue with the US legal system. It creates a separate set of laws only for the rich and elite. The biggest failure through all of this legal stuff is that he’s allowed to walk around free instead of spending time in jail like everyone else would. Lock him up and take away his social media access, and his message will be mitigated reducing the martyr effect.

  • coach@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I hereby officially declare Donald J. Trump ineligible to hold office, under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    There, I fucking did it. Challenge me in court, you orange bastard.

  • Snapz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    1 year ago

    When the federalist society is involved, in any capacity, you have to pause and see the bigger picture. A key player in/around that org is leonard leo. If you’re not aware, Leo is in and around the stories of all of the conservative justices on the Supreme Court - including being a key facilitator in the recent overt corruption stories with thomas and alito (he’s also the name that funnels money to “ginny” thomas, clarence thomas’ batshit insane, Jan 6th supporting wife.

    So this (from the article) is likely closer to the actual point of them publishing, to sow doubt and discord:

    “But as a matter of politics, encouraging state election officials to go rogue and kick Trump off the ballot is a recipe for disaster. And that disconnect, between what the law says and the practical barriers to implementing it, speaks to some deep problems in American democracy that led to Trump’s insurrection in the first place.”

    They want that chaos. These aren’t your friends and allies.

    • hglman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If they get the Trump ruled out, they can start claiming all dems engage in insurrection and have the supreme court uphold it.

  • jecht360@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    I would love to see it happen but will remain pessimistic. It seems all the wealthy people get away with whatever they want.

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    It is important to note that trump still has the right to due process under s2 of the 14th, and will probably be the grounds for dismissal if there isn’t some sort of court hearing.

    The NM case probably sets some precedent saying he doesn’t have to be convicted …. But I have no confidence in SCROTUS

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Baude and Paulsen’s paper, set to be published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, focusing on plain-language readings on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and the way its key terms were used in political discussion around the time of enactment.

    If this interpretation is correct, then the legal case against Trump is fairly straightforward — all established by facts in public reporting, evidence from the January 6 committee, and the recent federal indictment.

    Even if (let’s say) the members of a state board of elections think someone below the drinking age would make the best president in American history, the law is clear that such a person can’t hold office and thus can’t be permitted to run.

    Every official involved in the US election system, from a local registrar to members of Congress, has an obligation to determine if candidates for the presidency and other high office are prohibited from running under Section 3.

    Moreover, state election officials are not federal judges; the very existence of Griffin’s Case, however poorly reasoned, creates real doubt as to whether they are legally empowered to do what Baude and Paulsen are telling them they have to do.

    Best case, there’s a write-in campaign to put Trump in the presidency, giving rise to a constitutional crisis if he won (since the Supreme Court would have ruled him ineligible in upholding the state officials’ actions).


    I’m a bot and I’m open source!

    • UnanimousStargazer@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s not an AUTOMATIC disqualification, it still needs to be adjudicated

      I might have mistaken what was written, but the scholars in the paper explicitly point out section 3 is ‘self-executing’. ~Which means it does not require adjuducation.~ I was mistaken, see comment below.

      If it happened before, that doesn’t mean it was necessary.

      • fubo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        “Self-executing” there means that the Constitutional prohibition doesn’t require Congress to pass a law on the subject.

        Some Constitutional provisions do require Congressional action to take effect. For instance, the income tax is authorized by the Sixteenth Amendment, but the amendment does not itself create an income tax; it just tells Congress that it may do so.

        (The original Constitution did not allow an income tax, because it expected the federal government to fund itself from tariffs and from tax assessments from the states, which were required to be proportional to population.)

  • Leate Woncelsace@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I realized this on the 6th. It’s the first thing that crossed my mind when I knew what was happening. I’m not a legal scholar; I’m a mathematician, so I’m wondering how it took so long for this to happen.

  • Roundcat@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think this would be a very hard thing to enforce safely, at least in the context the lawyers say the 14th amendment is actionable. If someone like a governor or hell a county clerk were to raise an objection and attempt to prevent Trump’s name from appearing on the ballots, they might have the authority to do so, but there would be challenges all the way up the chain, and pressure from voters and civilians to keep his name up, likely through threat of violence if we follow the same pattern as the 2020 elections and the insurrection.

    At this point, do we risk the possibility of Trump getting a second term, or take that possibility off the table but put ourselves in another possible insurrection attempt?

    • DragonAce@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think random threats of violence from a bunch of morons who have no understanding of how the world works is still a better option than full on fascism, were he to run and win.

    • elscallr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The smart move? Register Republican and vote for third party candidates en masse in the primary. Then throw your vote to whichever useless slug lands in the D column on your general ticket.

    • Nougat@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are already suits being prepared to send to states in order to disqualify Trump from appearing on the ballot, on the basis of the 14th Amendment, Section 3. Such a suit was partially successful in New Mexico, against a county commissioner who was convicted of trespassing for entering the Capitol building on Jan 6, 2021.

      In that case, the court found that A) Jan 6 was, for the purposes of 14A S3, an “insurrection,” and B), that the defendant in the suit engaged in that insurrection. The election occurred while the case was awaiting appeal, and the defendant lost, so the case is moot.

      However, that Part B above is informative, in that it is most certainly not required that a defendant of such a case have been convicted of “insurrection or rebellion,” only that they have engaged in the same. Where there was an insurrection, did the defendant contribute to that insurrection? Where the answer is yes, the person (who has previously held office and sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution) is disqualified from office. There is no requirement for any other legislation or legal case.

      At this point, do we risk the possibility of Trump getting a second term, or take that possibility off the table but put ourselves in another possible insurrection attempt?

      The possibility of Trump gaining the presidency again is more likely than there being a significantly successful insurrection or rebellion in response to his being disqualified from the ballot for the 2024 election. Furthermore, Trump’s candidacy is currently all but certain - at present, he will be on the ballot in all fifty states and various territories - and the election is closer in time than any possible public turmoil in response to it. The greater likelihood of Trump being put back in office, and the nearer proximity in time of that event, means that we should be addressing that possibility, and not second guessing based on a “what if?” prediction.

      Back to the process of applying 14A S3. Application does not require any court filing. Surely, a judicial order would carry more “legitimacy” with certain people, but the disqualification just is, in the same way that the disqualification for the office of president for people under age 35 just is. States have their own various processes for determining who is qualified to run for office, and who has the authority to make those decisions. Court cases are not necessary.

      Practically speaking, Trump would only need to be disqualified in a handful of swing states - Georgia, Wisconsin, Arizona, Michigan all come to mind - for him to be unable to reach 270 electoral votes.

  • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I think he’s ineligible for office for so many reasons but this argument is pretty weak. It just won’t go anywhere other than Lincoln Project masturbation.

      • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It relies on everyone agreeing that Trump’s actions equates to insurrection. So it’s assuming the conclusion.

        He isn’t even being charged with the crime of “insurrection.” There are legal definitions of the term and he hasn’t met them, according to rhe Special Counsel at least. So it’s extremely hard to make the case that his actions in particular amount to disqualifying actions legally, for him.

        There’s easy evidence that he shouldn’t be president, you just shouldn’t vote for him in the primary or the general, but the bar for saying he is currently legally barred from running is so high and the argument essentially assumes the conclusion. If you assume that yes he did commit insurrection, he is barred…but how does one say that is legally the case if he has not been found guilty of that in a court of law?

        • Efwis@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          His actions are covered under 14a s3 without a conviction based on this one part:

          given aid or comfort

          By refusing to call in the national guard, and then promising to give pardons to all who were convicted fall under that clause

  • Tyfud@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This is a coping mechanism. They have to believe there’s a reason for their suffering, so they invent a plan that’s happening behind the scenes that they’ll only understand at some vague time in the future.

    For the first hundred thousand or so years of human existence, this was fine, and helped keep us from losing our shit while developing our civilization.

    Now? It’s highly detrimental to our ability to cope with reality.

    Therapy and good friends are where it’s at.

    There is no greater plan. Sometimes shit just happens and you’ve got to deal with it to move on. That’s not something to be afraid of. That’s just life.

  • MomoTimeToDie
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Perhaps one of the most utterly retarded constitutional arguments possible

        • magnusrufus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Aw sweety, just because you don’t like hearing something doesn’t make it propaganda. Which part of two conservative lawyers from the federalist society are publishing an article about Trump’s ineligibility to run again do you think isn’t true?

            • magnusrufus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I didn’t say that I trust conservatives just that vox was reporting that those conservatives were publishing an article on that topic. You seem to think that some part of that is propaganda, or more likely you are saying random things that you think make you sound smart. It’s working sweety boomer, really.