Prominent conservative legal scholars are increasingly raising a constitutional argument that 2024 Republican candidate Donald Trump should be barred from the presidency because of his actions to overturn the previous presidential election result.

  • lemmyvore
    link
    fedilink
    English
    181 year ago

    If he’s guilty of insurrection he should be accused, put to trial, and if convicted it should follow that he can’t run for president anymore.

    • @p1mrx@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      11
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      So your interpretation of the 14th amendment is that “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion” is the exclusive responsibility of the judicial system to determine? Maybe that’s a valid interpretation, but it’s not actually written in the text.

      • AggressivelyPassive
        link
        fedilink
        151 year ago

        Ehm, yes it is. It’s the text.

        Laws don’t say “a person who committed a crime, if the fact that this crime has been, in fact, committed by that person, has been decided by a judge, who has previously passed the exam necessary…”. Laws imply a few basic assumptions. One assumption is, that every decision by “the government” is in principle dependent on the judicial system.

        If the IRS decides, you’re a millionaire now and taxes you accordingly, you can go to court and they will decide whether you’re actually taxable as a millionaire.

        Trump may be deemed a traitor/insurrectionist by Congress/Senate/DOJ or any other body and thus barred from running, but he too can simply go to court and let it be decided - and given that the supreme court is, let’s say, rather in his favor, the result is rather obvious.

        Trump will use any loophole, any slight formal error to get around this. So you have to have a really water tight case.

        • UristMcHolland
          link
          fedilink
          31 year ago

          or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

          Hundreds of rioters and those directly involved with the proud boys have pleaded guilty for their role in the instruction. Many of them giving sworn testimony stating that Trump himself gave them a call to action with his words, tweets and actions.

          So even if Trump himself isn’t convicted on the charges that he is facing, him giving aid and comfort to those who have already been convicted should itself bar him from public office. (in my opinion - I am not a lawyer)

          • AggressivelyPassive
            link
            fedilink
            21 year ago

            So what?

            I’m not defending Trump, but convicting him, solely because of how others interpreted his messages is extremely dodgy.

            Here, again, it’s up to judges to decide whether these tweets show intent to send these messages. Could Trump reasonably expect that these tweets would be received as an “order” to storm the Capitol?

            • @trafficnab@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              11 year ago

              Well, if it wasn’t his intent, he sure did sit watching it on TV until it was clear that the US government would not be overthrown, instead of swiftly taking action like any other president would when congress is under attack

              We had to rely on Pence, hiding in the capitol basement, to actually attempt to manage this thing

              • AggressivelyPassive
                link
                fedilink
                11 year ago

                Again, so what?

                Negligent, sure. But that’s not the point.

                You keep arguing on a moral level, which is entirely besides the point. The question is: is he guilty of insurrection? Not bad presidenting, not shitty behavior.

                • @trafficnab@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  11 year ago

                  It’s strong circumstantial evidence that the attack on the capitol (which itself is just a component of his overall objective to illegally overturn the election results) was his intention all along

        • @Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          If the IRS decides, you’re a millionaire now and taxes you accordingly, you can go to court and they will decide whether you’re actually taxable as a millionaire.

          Funny enough, no you can’t. The courts don’t have any say in that.

          There’s all kinds of government determinations that have no court remedy. Impeachment, for example, is done solely through congress.

          • AggressivelyPassive
            link
            fedilink
            21 year ago

            Of course they have. If, say, they decide wrongly that the house you sold is worth 50million and not 50k, you can go to court for that.

            Impeachment is a bit of a different beast, since it’s done by the governing body - essentially they’re making it legal on the fly. But even then, I’m pretty sure, if Congress would have decided in 2013 that Obama can’t be president because he’s black, there would be an option for the supreme court.

            • @Cryophilia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              21 year ago

              I looked into it and you’re right! I was under the impression that you only had the option (after exhausting administrative remedies within the IRS) of paying them and then suing them to recover what you consider the excess amount, but the US Tax Court will take cases where the IRS has not been paid yet.

      • I think a conviction is the only way to get something even some Republicans will have to agree to. The only other methods I can think of would require the Senate and House to vote against him, and I don’t think that’s going to happen.

      • lemmyvore
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        So I can just accuse somebody and they’re barred from running?

        A conviction means a process was followed, evidence was weighed, arguments pro and con were considered.