this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2023
626 points (95.8% liked)

politics

20722 readers
4203 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 155 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

They could, but will they?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 118 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 years ago

Seems like there is a need for some House cleaning... And Senate too

[–] [email protected] 114 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

If only there was a political party that cared about constitution enough to deny him nomination and had collective balls to declare so publicly.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 years ago (2 children)

There probably is, it's just that nobody ever votes third party

[–] [email protected] 24 points 2 years ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago

...and that that largest third party with a candidate for election is fully bankrolled by the GOP.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

It'll never happen as long as the "We go high, you go low" strategy is in effect

[–] Pratai 57 points 2 years ago

We don’t follow the constitution anymore…. Unless it serves to keep guns in the hands of those that shouldn’t have them.

[–] [email protected] 43 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judge-removes-local-official-engaging-jan-insurrection/story?id=89463597

"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."

[–] darthskull 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Can't you just challenge him being put on the ballet in your state?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago

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).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If that turd gets reelected, every country that matters will do nothing above minimum to maintain diplomatic ties.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Russia, Hungary, Belarus, and others will be happy to be the US's new best friends.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Russia, other Russia, and third rate Russia?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 2 years ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Would someone be willing to paste the text? It's behind a paywall.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The OP posted an archive link so it skips the paywall: https://archive.ph/AwZcx

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 years ago (3 children)

After 3 captchas, I gave up. Any other links?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago

Yeah I think I did four. I feel like I was trolled.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Are you using Cloudflare DNS?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

they would have to convict him first. maybe that's part of the reason they want to delay the trial.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 years ago

Read the article. Conviction is not required from the POV of the authors.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 years ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

The constitution states that the matter is decided by a round of Roshambo

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

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"?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago

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)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] small_crow 3 points 2 years ago

Ya roshambo is always played best two out of three

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago

Oh, then trump wins. He doesn’t have balls.

load more comments
view more: next ›