CREW on Wednesday filed a lawsuit seeking to bar Trump from the 2024 ballot in Colorado under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment based on his alleged involvement in Jan. 6
More lawsuits… a lawsuit is good. All these yahoos claiming he’s ineligible over allegations is just more of the exact same bullshit that made him a shitty president, asjusting definitions and specifics back and forth until it fit the narrative…we don’t need more bullshit, file the lawsuits and give the courts an opportunity to make an official determination.
This will be interesting to see play out. My bet is that it’s a dead end. Until he is actually convicted of a crime, it’s just allegations, nothing more. The concept of “innocent until proven guilty” is still valid, even for the scummiest of people. And really, we want that. The last thing we need is people being prevented from running for office, because they said some bad stuff. It needs to be proven that the bad stuff they said rises to the level of criminality. Then we remove them from the ballot.
Until it’s proven as a criminal act in a court of law, it’s an allegation. Ya, there’s good evidence behind it; but, the process is the same for even the worst of people.
The American criminal process is similar for groups of people who share socioeconomic circumstances, but that doesn’t change the fact that trump definitely interfered in the election.
It’s an audio recording of trump, as far as I’m aware nobody has denied his Identity, interfering in an election.
A criminal conviction for certain charges versus the fact of him literally interfering in a presidential election are different things.
I can see how a conservative judge or officials can pretend that interfering in a presidential election does not constitute rebellion against the Constitution, but if you know what those words mean, that’s what trumpo did.
But i'm not sure all of the things in the 14th amendment are necessarily criminal. I can't see how it's be a crime to give comfort to someone like Enrique Tarrio, but doing so disqualifies anyone who's previously taken an oath to uphold the constitution. How would that be enforced?
I look forward to seeing clarence thomas tie himself up in knots over that.
Aiding and abetting is a legal doctrine related to the guilt of someone who aids or abets (encourages, incites) another person in the commission of a crime (or in another's suicide). It exists in a number of different countries and generally allows a court to pronounce someone guilty for aiding and abetting in a crime even if he or she is not the principal offender. The words aiding, abetting and accessory are closely used but have differences. While aiding means providing support or assistance to someone, abetting means encouraging someone else to commit a crime. Accessory is someone who in fact assists "commission of a crime committed primarily by someone else".
Yeah I understand those terms, but I'm not sure that's exactly what the constitution says. It says "provides comfort to enemies" and that's not exactly the same as aiding. I think ultimately that the states would have to enforce it though because there's no real mechanism for enforcement spelled out in the constitution
Even if he were convicted, the 14th amendment clearly states that it is up to congress to pass laws to enforce the provisions. The SCOTUS would certainly interpret that to mean that it's up to congress to disqualify. And if any lower court did kick him off the ballot, the SCOTUS would grant cert just to undo that.
Assuming Trump is convicted of “Rebellion or Insurrection”, the laws already exist to enact the prohibition on holding office. 18 USC 2383 specifically states:
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
So, there is that. However, this lawsuit is completely out of order. For all the bad stuff Trump has done, he’s not been convicted of “Rebellion or Insurrection” yet. So, trying to apply this sort of prohibition to him is a bit premature.
What’s the viability of this tactic in most states? I don’t even think most states prevent the electoral college electors from just picking whoever they want, so R in states that try to prevent him running can just run his VP as P (and Milo Yianoppolous or something as a fake VP) then just vote for Trump if their district votes R.
Is the state gerrymandered to hell in favor of Republicans? - Trump will be on the ticket.
Any other state: Serious ability to keep him off the ticket. I suspect once he's convicted and in prison or escaped to Russia there will be even more with him not on the ballot.
Florida, Texas, and Wisconsin will have him on the ballot anyway.
Yep, and Republicans are going to end up impeaching her to try to stop the redistricting.
They'll be in for a surprise when they get a constitutional crisis when Evers reassigns her to the same seat. They'll be in for more when the capitol and their homes are shut down by non-stop protests when they do.
Add comment