cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/4561007
A liberal group on Wednesday filed a lawsuit to bar former President Donald Trump from the primary ballot in Colorado, arguing he is ineligible to run for the White House again under a rarely used clause in the U.S. Constitution aimed at candidates who have supported an “insurrection.”
If there’s one “good” thing to come out of Trump’s political career is that he was able to expose a lot of the weaknesses that our government and our Constitution have when it comes to enforcement of the Constitution, while simultaneously being too stupid to be able to do too much damage in the process. Things could be far, far worse if Trump had the poltical acumen of someone like Mitch McConnell.
What he’s shown is that we need to answer a lot of the questions that have been raised during his term. The Constitution says that someone who aides in insurrection or gives aid and comfort to those that do are disqualified from being President. Ok, but who defines “insurrection”? What is “aid and comfort”? Who’s responsible for declaring who is and isn’t disqualified? How is it enforced? And how can the answers to these questions not be turned around and used against us by the opposing party?
That’s the most on-topic example, but there are tons of examples just in the Constitution alone. How are these things defined? Who’s responsible for enforcement? What are the penalties for breaking these laws?
The answer to all of these questions is often little more than a shrug. And we do need to get these answers before Trump 2.0 comes along and exploits these unanswered questions to actually accomplish what Trump and his stooges were trying to accomplish on January 6th.
The bad part is that even when Democrats controlled both houses, there was virtually zero appetite to even discuss how to start answering these questions. And in the absence of congressional action, we’ll have to rely on the Supreme Court to be able to make an objective, unbiased ruling for future leaders to follow. And there’s no reason to believe that the Supreme Court won’t make an honest, objective ruling, right? We’ve got this…we’ve got this…
I hope.
In the case of the one recent person bounced out on 14th Amendment grounds… it was based on a conviction first. Even that conviction wasn’t grounds for immediate removal, that required a legal challenge.
In both houses of Congress, majorities (232–197 in the House and 57-43 in the Senate) found Trump to be liable for the insurrection:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_impeachment_of_Donald_Trump
That’s the indictment, the conviction needed to happen in the Senate and that didn’t happen.
It’s the equivalent of Jack Smith indicting Trump on 4 felony counts, if the jury fails to convict, it doesn’t mean anything.
Oh 2.0 is coming with Trump just read about the 2025 project. We need to keep Trump and any Republican away from the white house. Because if they succeed they plan to end Democracy.
And when this ultimately lands on the Supreme Court we know exactly what happens
Would it not reside with Congress per the Consitution? Sounds like a vote in Congress must be held and anything less than a 2/3 vote would mean he is disqualified.
Isn’t the question whether or not his involvement in the insurrection already makes him disqualified per the constitution? That might require the SC to decide if that means someone has to be convicted to be prevented from running.
Did Trump violate his oath of office?
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
It’s a fact that Trump moved to circumvent Constitution of the United States which violates his oath. The 14th Amendment Section Three reads:
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.
It is a fact Trump gave aid to those participants on January 6, 2021. This actives the 14th amendment and disqualifies him from any government office.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
It would bar him from working at McDonald’s… yet here we are.
That and he can’t even spell ‘hamburger.’
hAMbErdErS
too hamberders and a larj covfefe pleeze
But sir mr. former president, this is home depot
I thought him eating all the food would be the main impediment.
Since it wasn’t explicitly named the group is
Yep.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
DENVER (AP) — A liberal group on Wednesday filed a lawsuit to bar former President Donald Trump from the primary ballot in Colorado, arguing he is ineligible to run for the White House again under a rarely used clause in the U.S. Constitution aimed at candidates who have supported an “insurrection.”
Liberal groups have demanded that states’ top election officials bar Trump under the clause that prohibits those who “engaged in an insurrection or rebellion” against the Constitution from holding higher office.
While a few fringe figures have filed thinly written lawsuits in a few states citing the clause, the litigation Wednesday was the first by an organization with significant legal resources.
Colorado’s secretary of state, Democrat Jena Griswold, said in a statement that she hoped “this case will provide guidance to election officials on Trump’s eligibility as a candidate for office.”
The lawsuit contends the case is clear, given the attempt by then-President Trump to overturn his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden and his support for the assault of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
The clause cites “presidential electors” but not presidents themselves as being disqualified if they previously swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and then broke it.
The original article contains 420 words, the summary contains 205 words. Saved 51%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
deleted by creator
He ordered his followers to march to the capitol and “fight like hell” and then didn’t clarify “oh no I meant rhetorically” when they started breaking in and chanting “hang mike pence”
Like hell he wasn’t a part of it
deleted by creator
He also did nothing to stop the insurrection while it was happening - he could’ve easily given the order for the military or national guard to intervene and he did no such thing. In fact he watched it all go down on tv and did NOTHING. That is a failure to uphold his oath to protect and defend the constitution.
deleted by creator
How is that a reach? His job is literally to protect our country from all enemies foreign and domestic - he literally did not do that.
Removed by mod
If I told you to go fight like hell, and you used violence, I’d at best be an accomplice. Words mean things, stop pretending otherwise.
deleted by creator
“I’m right because words don’t mean the things they mean”
Fucking baby. When was the last time you used “but it was just a joke” to get out of being held accountable for your words? I’m betting you do that a lot, based on this exchange
deleted by creator
Right, but if I told you to fight like hell rhetorically, and saw you fighting like hell physical, I’d be quick to clarify. He sat on his thumbs for hours watching it unfold.
Thank you for the derision, I and my MLIS don’t give shit about it though.
