You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
2 points

Sorry, but this is absolutely a victory for democracy and what little structure our government still has. If the states were to be allowed to remove candidates from the ballot, you could kiss any chance of Democrat candidates showing up on red state ballots goodbye.

permalink
report
parent
reply
61 points

Except for the part where they punt to Congress as the sole arbiter of whether Trump engaged in insurrection. They absolutely know Congress won’t get off its collective ass to enforce, because it’s too broken to even pass a budget.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

If a person cannot hold an office, they are typically also disqualified from running for said office, for exactly that reason. What would you do if an ineligible person won the election? That would be utter chaos.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

They can’t really sue to disqualify him in federal court because Congress hasn’t defined any process to do so. They absolutely could if they wanted though. As of right now if I’m correct the only way to disqualify someone is if they’re convicted of rebellion or insurrection under 18 U.S.C. § 2383 as it specifically lists it as part of the punishment. Or Congress could potentially disqualify someone directly by name – it wouldn’t necessarily be an illegal bill of attainder because it carries no criminal penalty.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

More than anyone can imagine

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

That’s a problem with Congress. That doesn’t change the fact that we should not give Republicans a new route to undermine the voting process.

permalink
report
parent
reply
38 points

States have always had control over federal elections and candidate qualifications. That’s been fundamental to American federalism since the very beginning.

It’s not like oath-breaking is the only disqualifier, and states decide those too.

permalink
report
parent
reply
37 points

Call me old fashioned, but an outgoing president who falsely claims their challenger stole the election and incites their supporters to storm the capitol building should be barred from holding office again, Democrat or Republican.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I absolutely agree. But it’s up to Congress to actually do that. That’s the branch of government that has failed here.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

How would they do that? Congress can’t actually charge someone with a crime. That’s why they wrote the 14th Amendment which spelled this out.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

States remove candidates routinely. It’s their constitutional right. Except with Trump for some reason.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

For some Reason indeed.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Yup. He’s getting special treatment. Again.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Do you have any examples of that? I’m certainly no expert in this subject, so I’d love to know more.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Abdul Hassan, 2012, Colorado. Disqualified by the state for not being a natural born citizen. Sued and lost. The ensuing opinion authored by then district judge Neil Gorsuch upheld the constitutional right and duty of states to bar ineligible candidates.

permalink
report
parent
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 18K

    Posts

  • 468K

    Comments