47th President of the USA : D. J. Trump

[Loki]

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...xas-dobbs.html

But at least Dread can get lower taxes.

[Aimless]

It's not even abt taxes, it's just the nihilist's desperate desire to feel something.

[LittleFuzzy]

Confederates who had to petition Congress to let them run for political office weren't convicted either.

That's true. There was a policy decision made not to attempt to try and convict more than a million people but to provide a general amnesty instead. A million people who also did not, by and large, contest the claim they had participated in an insurrection. But the policy decision with this insurrection WAS to attempt to try and convict people. And while the political climate back then would never have tolerated it, there is a perfectly reasonable and very strong case to be made that trying to apply that provision of the 14th amendment without a conviction is itself a violation of the 5th amendment. The ability to run for federal office is not a privilege granted by the government. It is afforded to every citizen (every natural-born citizen, in the case of the Presidency), with certain age and residency pre-reqs. I do not know that I would characterize it as a right, per se, but the freedom to do so is most certainly a liberty afforded to US citizens. I have seen it claimed that the 14th amendment is self-executing. That's rampant nonsense. Nothing in the Constitution executes itself, not even the one part which absolutely should, the 10th amendment. Certainly if a clause about rebellion and insurrection were self-executing, there wouldn't been any point to 18 USC 2383.

[Hazir]

Remains the question if impeachment isn't the only way to establish that a 13.3 situation occurred when dealing with the President.

[LittleFuzzy]

I don't think it would or should be, but it seems to me that it can't possibly be correct that it's properly the arbitrary decision of 50 individual secretaties of state on what looks like insurrection to them. There needs to be some kind of due process. A court conviction. An expulsion on such grounds from another federal body. Impeachment proceedings. In Trump's case there has already been one proceeding on exactly these grounds and it failed to convict.

[Loki]

That's true. There was a policy decision made not to attempt to try and convict more than a million people but to provide a general amnesty instead. A million people who also did not, by and large, contest the claim they had participated in an insurrection. But the policy decision with this insurrection WAS to attempt to try and convict people. And while the political climate back then would never have tolerated it, there is a perfectly reasonable and very strong case to be made that trying to apply that provision of the 14th amendment without a conviction is itself a violation of the 5th amendment. The ability to run for federal office is not a privilege granted by the government. It is afforded to every citizen (every natural-born citizen, in the case of the Presidency), with certain age and residency pre-reqs. I do not know that I would characterize it as a right, per se, but the freedom to do so is most certainly a liberty afforded to US citizens. I have seen it claimed that the 14th amendment is self-executing. That's rampant nonsense. Nothing in the Constitution executes itself, not even the one part which absolutely should, the 10th amendment. Certainly if a clause about rebellion and insurrection were self-executing, there wouldn't been any point to 18 USC 2383.

Except the Jan. 6 people weren't actually charged with taking part in an insurrection. Using your logic, they're not barred from political office either.

I don't see how this is a decision made solely by secretaries of state. Every state court will get to review these decisions. That's the due process. The Colorado courts already ruled that Trump took part in an insurrection.

[Hazir]

I don't think it would or should be, but it seems to me that it can't possibly be correct that it's properly the arbitrary decision of 50 individual secretaties of state on what looks like insurrection to them. There needs to be some kind of due process. A court conviction. An expulsion on such grounds from another federal body. Impeachment proceedings. In Trump's case there has already been one proceeding on exactly these grounds and it failed to convict.

And I wonder if that's going to get him off the hook in the supreme court. It's a bit worrisome that a majority in the senate would go as far as letting subversion of the government slide for partisan reasons. Patriotism obviously isn't really a Republican virtue.

[GGT]

USA #1!

Leader of the Freee World! Champion of Human Rights!

[LittleFuzzy]

Except the Jan. 6 people weren't actually charged with taking part in an insurrection. Using your logic, they're not barred from political office either.

Well yeah, of course they're not barred from political office. If they hadn't held military or government position the 14th amendment rule doesn't apply.

I don't see how this is a decision made solely by secretaries of state. Every state court will get to review these decisions. That's the due process. The Colorado courts already ruled that Trump took part in an insurrection.

An appeal for judicial review is not the same thing as a defense against charges. It's administrative law and has very significant differences in burden of proof, evidentiary requirements, etc. Due process is not the same which is the hard kernel of truth behind recent challenges despite how irritatingly "let the rich oppress the poor more" those challenges and decisions have been in nature.

[LittleFuzzy]

And I wonder if that's going to get him off the hook in the supreme court. It's a bit worrisome that a majority in the senate would go as far as letting subversion of the government slide for partisan reasons. Patriotism obviously isn't really a Republican virtue.

It was a clear demonstration that most of them were unfit for office. And personally, I consider the actions of that group to amount to aid and comfort under the 14th amendment as well. As could any secretary of state if this approach is allowed

And the amount of whistling in the dark. . . a number of them did not want another Trump term either, but did not want to risk any backlash or challenges for bucking that wing of the party and were convinced it could not possibly happen so why not have their cake and eat it too. Not just unpatriotic, but cowards and morons.

[Loki]

Well yeah, of course they're not barred from political office. If they hadn't held military or government position the 14th amendment rule doesn't apply.

Some of them were state legislators. The amendment applies to them.

https://www.americanoversight.org/in...capitol-attack

An appeal for judicial review is not the same thing as a defense against charges. It's administrative law and has very significant differences in burden of proof, evidentiary requirements, etc. Due process is not the same which is the hard kernel of truth behind recent challenges despite how irritatingly "let the rich oppress the poor more" those challenges and decisions have been in nature.

The Constitution doesn't provide a mechanism for determining who engaged in an insurrection. It clearly doesn't treat impeachment as the only approach for keeping these kind of people out of office. The only precedents we have is for people who were never convicted in a criminal court asking for pardons. In fact, several congressmen were asking Trump for a preemptive pardon, presumably because they believed they were in trouble. So given that impeachment isn't necessary and criminal proceedings have no precedent, I don't see a problem with having secretaries of state and ultimately the courts deciding whether someone engaged in an insurrection. The alternative is that attempting to overthrow the US government carries absolutely no cost.

[Hazir]

Some of them were state legislators. The amendment applies to them.

https://www.americanoversight.org/in...capitol-attack



The Constitution doesn't provide a mechanism for determining who engaged in an insurrection. It clearly doesn't treat impeachment as the only approach for keeping these kind of people out of office. The only precedents we have is for people who were never convicted in a criminal court asking for pardons. In fact, several congressmen were asking Trump for a preemptive pardon, presumably because they believed they were in trouble. So given that impeachment isn't necessary and criminal proceedings have no precedent, I don't see a problem with having secretaries of state and ultimately the courts deciding whether someone engaged in an insurrection. The alternative is that attempting to overthrow the US government carries absolutely no cost.

You are pre-empting the ruling.

[Loki]

You are pre-empting the ruling.

Pre-empting what ruling?

[Aimless]

The ability to run for federal office is not a privilege granted by the government. It is afforded to every citizen (every natural-born citizen, in the case of the Presidency), with certain age and residency pre-reqs. I do not know that I would characterize it as a right, per se, but the freedom to do so is most certainly a liberty afforded to US citizens.

US citizens who haven't engaged in insurrection while in office as sworn defenders of the constitution. That is one of the necessary qualifications. Though SCOTUS has chosen to dodge the issue in the past, lower courts have explicitly afforded the section 3 disqualification a similar status as the qualifications you mention.

I have seen it claimed that the 14th amendment is self-executing.

You may have seen it in eg. the Colorado Supreme Court ruling. Or in the statement & analysis from the Maine Secretary of State. Or perhaps you saw it in Luttig and Tribe's Atlantic piece. Or perhaps you saw it in Baude & Paulsen's recent analysis. Or perhaps it was SCOTUS.

That's rampant nonsense. Nothing in the Constitution executes itself

In reality, this matter remains an area of active research and debate. If a wide range of knowledgable and experienced jurists treat the matter as being either unsettled or obviously in favour of the doctrine of self-execution, I don't think it's sensible to accept some contrarian internet guy's categorical dismissal out of hand; it's clearly not regarded as rampant nonsense by jurists whose literal job it is to develop our understanding of the law.

Certainly if a clause about rebellion and insurrection were self-executing, there wouldn't been any point to 18 USC 2383.

Even if your premise were true, it wouldn't be the first—or last—pointless piece of legislation in legal history. The premise is, however, not true. There is a point to seemingly redundant legislation—it provides clarity in difficult situations, bolstering one interpretation or another of the constitution's provisions. So there is a legal point, a pragmatic point, and—of course—a political point.

[Hazir]

Pre-empting what ruling?

Of the Supreme Court.

[EyeKhan]

My money is on SCOTUS putting him back on ballot. Seems like disqualifying him would be a tidy and just way to get rid of that fucker and hopefully end the US slide into fascism, but, I'm a big believer in the law of unintended consequences. And what's happening here isn't just about Trump, so, ugly is still our future.

[Loki]

Of the Supreme Court.

It's better to have tried and failed than to pretend instigating a coup isn't a serious issue.

[Loki]

I'm sure he's calling for the release of all the insurrectionists out of the goodness of his heart.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/tru...ry-2024-01-06/

[Loki]

Twitter Link

Can't wait for all the defenders of the Constitution to condemn this.

[Hazir]

It's better to have tried and failed than to pretend instigating a coup isn't a serious issue.

Tried what? Convict him in the Court of Liberal Public Opinion?

[Hazir]

My money is on SCOTUS putting him back on ballot. Seems like disqualifying him would be a tidy and just way to get rid of that fucker and hopefully end the US slide into fascism, but, I'm a big believer in the law of unintended consequences. And what's happening here isn't just about Trump, so, ugly is still our future.

Yes, but don’t forget that Biden being near unelectable plays into this. The Weimar Republic didn’t end just because Hitler got the biggest number of votes.

[Loki]

Tried what? Convict him in the Court of Liberal Public Opinion?

See Korematsu v. U.S. At least once a terrible decision has been made, a future Court can denounce it.

[Hazir]

See Korematsu v. U.S. At least once a terrible decision has been made, a future Court can denounce it.

Yes, I am aware your Supreme Court basically is a legal seesaw these days. But that wasn’t the question. You excitedly made a claim about a court case in which there wasn’t a ruling yet and then claimed something about trying being important. I’m still confused about what you tried besides stating your hopes as a fact.

[LittleFuzzy]

So, in case anyone missed it, SCOTUS overturned the Colorado decision. 9-0. Not a surprise.

[EyeKhan]

SCOTUS is also slow-walking Trump's Presidential Immunity claim to help him delay as much as they can. Hard to see that as non-political. Fuckers.

[Aimless]

Tbf nobody wants to be murdered by violent extremists

[Steely Glint]

So, Biden has to step aside, right? What are we thinking?

[EyeKhan]

So, Biden has to step aside, right? What are we thinking?

He HAS to. There is no fucking way. And FOR FUCK SAKE if they put Harris at the top of the ticket, fuck my life.

[Aimless]

So, Biden has to step aside, right? What are we thinking?

I'm thinking the whole debate plan smells but also that they may both be in the ground by november.

He HAS to. There is no fucking way. And FOR FUCK SAKE if they put Harris at the top of the ticket, fuck my life.

If Biden drops out it'll be Harris unless she's in the lava pit with him.

[Loki]

Nothing helps a party win an election quite like dumping the incumbent who already won the primary.