Conservative
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
view the rest of the comments
The 14th specifies no requirement for conviction. And historical precedent* has been set such that it does not require conviction.
*precedent
Damn auto correct 😁
Autocorrect is the bane of the world. Sometimes it helps. Sometimes it’s a lethal weapon.
Is there precedent? I'm not aware of anyone else who's been banned from elections for insurrection, but this also isn't my area. I kind of assumed it would follow the 'innocent until proven guilty in a court of law' thing, but I also don't know how much of a hard and fast rule that is for this type of crime.
I am genuinely curious. I kind of assumed he would never actually be charged and the amendment could never be invoked as a result.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Chart-of-Past-14.3-Disqualifications-rev.-07.10.23.pdf
Not sure what you mean by historical presidents. Did you mean precedence ? Prior cases we people who actually formed a new country. I’m not aware of anything other cases where there was a riot alone. Can you cite a prior case where they were not in a state that rebelled ?
I do not accept your attempt to move the goal posts. Your claim was about whether conviction was necessary. It is not.
It’s not moving the goalpost.
I suspect because he was never part of a rebellion, has not been charged with it or convicted of it, scotus will reject the courts opinion. The previous cases didn’t need a conviction because it was considered de facto