536
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 56 points 10 months ago

(Copied from another post)

The thing is, the 14th Amendment, Section 3 isn’t vague on this point - he IS disqualified:

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.

Look at the wording - it’s clearly intended to be an automatic disqualification. The only way you could possibly arrive at the conclusion that the Office of the President is exempt from this section is by jumping through frankly absurd and facile semantic hoops.

But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Pointedly, the only way Congress should be involved (per the relevant section) is in rescinding the disqualification.

[-] silkroadtraveler@lemmy.today 29 points 10 months ago

The Supreme Court is prepared to jump through those hoops. They’ve practiced long and hard for this opportunity.

[-] nxdefiant@startrek.website 16 points 10 months ago

Clarence Thomas's Patreon is quite well funded, so it'd be dishonest if he didn't.

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 6 points 10 months ago

(Also copied from another post)

Well, they’re only appointed for life, and they did somewhat recently vastly broaden the scope of the 2nd Amendment, and political violence is on the rise, so I wouldn’t be shocked if one or more people decided enough is enough and conducted a “citizen’s kinetic impeachment”, as it were.

Regardless of how things ultimately turn out, things are definitely 10/10 fucky, and I absolutely hate it.

[-] nomous@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Unfortunately the "left" in the US is full of thinky ideologues and very few people of action.

[-] Zippy@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago

Again it did not pass the 2/3 rule. That is critical to make it lawful. I don't know why that is so hard to understand.

I get it. Trump is a sedacious bastards. But regardless they have yet to convict him of that in the legal court or within the Senate. Ones of those needs to have happened and it has not.

And by the way it is not uncommon. Was done to Clinton for what amounted to a private matter but again did not pass the Senate and thus it did not effect his access to office. As it shouldn't have in his case.

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago

It doesn’t require conviction. The amendment is written such that disqualification is automatic.

this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2024
536 points (95.1% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2566 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS