It only matters if anyone does something about it. Really there should be a few traitors kicked outta congress as well but they haven’t been.
Chris Christie and Joe Biden could sue in enough states, trying to pull him off the ballot, that a) it’d be all over the news and b) it might work in a couple of states, enough to help
They could, but will they?
John Boehner should have been charged with sedition.
TLDR version is that Amendment 14 Section 3 says if you were involved in an attempt to overthrow the government you no longer are allowed to hold public office.
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office 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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Seems like there is a need for some House cleaning… And Senate too
If only there was a political party that cared about constitution enough to deny him nomination and had collective balls to declare so publicly.
There probably is, it’s just that nobody ever votes third party
Spoiler effect makes that an almost impossible option
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_splitting
We need to get rid of First Past the Post voting.
…and that that largest third party with a candidate for election is fully bankrolled by the GOP.
It’ll never happen as long as the “We go high, you go low” strategy is in effect
We don’t follow the constitution anymore…. Unless it serves to keep guns in the hands of those that shouldn’t have them.
I think the trick is going to be, based on the other guy who got disqualified for 1/6, is that someone actually has to challenge the nomination. It’s not something that happens automatically.
“The decision came in a lawsuit brought by a group of New Mexico residents represented by the government accountability group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and other lawyers.”
Can’t you just challenge him being put on the ballet in your state?
Yes, any state could do this. No state will decide who goes on their ballots until after the primaries though. They can “declare” things all they want, but nothing is actionable until the ballots are finalized (and then the suing starts).
Yes, and if he becomes the nominee, that will have to be done. But in the end it won’t matter unless enough states successfully do it to deprive him of 270 electoral college votes.
If that turd gets reelected, every country that matters will do nothing above minimum to maintain diplomatic ties.
Russia, Hungary, Belarus, and others will be happy to be the US’s new best friends.
Russia, other Russia, and third rate Russia?
All best friends with New Russodonia
Keep the initialism, makes rebranding easier. Unites Soviet America.
If the prosecution can’t nail him due to lack of evidence or technicality, it will exonerate him completely in public eyes.
Prosecution is under high pressure to deliver here.
Would someone be willing to paste the text? It’s behind a paywall.
The OP posted an archive link so it skips the paywall: https://archive.ph/AwZcx
After 3 captchas, I gave up. Any other links?
raw text: https://pastebin.com/raw/AAybnADh
Yeah I think I did four. I feel like I was trolled.
Are you using Cloudflare DNS?
Nope.
they would have to convict him first. maybe that’s part of the reason they want to delay the trial.
Read the article. Conviction is not required from the POV of the authors.
Notably the constitution doesn’t actually require a trial of any sort. The amendment was put in after the civil war, it would have been impossible to have a trial for everyone that participated in the Confederacy. Bit of an open question how that gets determined nowadays though.
The constitution states that the matter is decided by a round of Roshambo
But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
From the text 2/3 of the house and the senate need to explicitly vote to allow it.
Yup, the constitution just says if you do it. Doesn’t say you have to be convicted of doing it in court, or anything like that. Just being involved you are automatically disqualified and Congress has to vote to override that.
I love how people think the law works. Like they’re magical incantations and just “apply” without needing to be decided and enforced.
Who would decide “if you [did] it”?
The actual answer is 2/3rds of congress. If two thirds of congress decided he can’t be president because they believe he wasn’t born in the US, regardless of the evidence, he’d be disqualified then too. (As an example)
I’m imagining a future where both Trump and Biden get declared rebels by the other party, and neither can pass the 2/3rd vote. The government devolves into chaos where nobody can run for president anymore… eventually we just have to pick Tom Hanks because everyone thinks he’s alright.
We can’t pick Mr Rogers, so we’ll just pick the guy who played him in the biographical - he’s the second best option.
Nope, Fox News already did a whole thing about hating Mr. Rogers 15+ years ago. He wouldn’t be an option at all.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=29lmR_357rA
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Fuck I couldn’t even watch that! What a twisted bunch of arseholes feeling the need to punch on the one guy on TV who legitimately only wanted to do good things for kids. He spent his life carefully bringing a message to kids that everyone deserves to be loved - and those hosts spent 20 minutes complaining that he was too soft on them. I feel sorry for their kids!
Ya roshambo is always played best two out of three
Oh, then trump wins. He doesn’t have balls.
deleted by creator
are american citizens enemies of the republic per section 3?
The clause was designed to operate directly and immediately upon those who betray their oaths to the Constitution, whether by taking up arms to overturn our government or by waging war on our government by attempting to overturn a presidential election through a bloodless coup.
american here, I never took an oath to the constitution. i know a few folks who served in the military so presumably they did but I sure as hell didnt.
Trump did and he helped coordinate it, read the indictment in Georgia, they have receipts.
That was their point. It doesn’t apply to the average person because the average person hasn’t taken an oath to the constitution, but politicians who have served terms in office have, so it applies to them
What does that have to do with anything? That’s a nonsensical statement.
go back and read the comment chain, then think about it
Telling people to go back and read the nonsense you wrote doesn’t make it sound less nonsensical, it’s just nonsense we’ve read twice.
And if you participate in insurrection against the country you’ll be disqualified from taking that oath
Do you want to be elected to political office?
I assume it’s just implied cause your a citizen.
You ever say the pledge of allegiance?
Yes? There is your oath.
lol
I’m not sure what you’re intending to ask with this question.
Is it theoretically possible for an American citizen to take on a role that would characterize them as a legally defined enemy of the US?
Yes.
Has it happened that American citizens took on roles that made them enemies of the United States?
Yes.
Are all American citizens enemies of the United States by grace of being American citizens?
No.
Does a citizen making a violent attack against the United States with a terroristic intent or with the intent of overthrowing the democratically elected government mean that the citizen violated 14.3?
No.
Is a person who has taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, and having engaged in an attempt to overthrow the government by means of force, or who has aided enemies of the United States including those engaging in such acts or attempts, fall under Section 3 and is thus barred from holding public office without a Congressional removal?
Yes.
That is not what makes their actions the actions of an enemy. They’re enemies whether or not they’re also oath-breakers. They will have to face the consequences of their actions as combatants, terrorists, or however their actions are classified. s3 is an additional bar from them again holding office, since they’ve already demonstrated their propensity to destroy that which is entrusted to them.
Why would they be?
deleted by creator
