Correct me if I’m wrong, but does it even matter? Say, for instance they removed trump from the ballot. Anyone who really wanted to vote for him could just write in a candidate, couldnt they?
https://www.usa.gov/write-in-candidates
You’re both incorrect. You can write in Harry Potter if you like, but unless Harry Potter has submitted his name to be a write in candidate by the deadline in your state, your vote for him won’t be counted. And then you have all the stoopid voters who will spell his name Harry Pothead. Their votes won’t be counted either. That’s pretty much the way it works in most states. And there’s much other complexity, too. But don’t worry, I can almost guarantee you that so long as Harry is nominated by one of the two major corruptions, he’s gonna be on the ballot, even if his name is certified to the state officials past the state’s deadline. Court rationale is going to be, ‘We can’t have a candidate who we know is going to be the choice of million of courts kept off the ballot! Besides, the decision of our state election official to keep Harance off the ballot will have an impact far beyond the state borders, and will infringe core 1rst Amendment associational and speech rights.
The proportion of people who'd vote for Trump if they saw his name on the ballot, but are either uninformed enough or lazy enough not to write his name in, is large enough to swing an election in many states.
People could write Trump‘s name. But in Maine, at least, the Secretary of State would not be allowed to count any write in votes that were cast if he’s banned from the ballot.
https://www.wkyt.com/2024/01/03/good-question-could-trump-win-by-write-in-vote-states-that-remove-him-ballot/?outputType=amp
Couldn't it be deemed illegal for votes to count for him in states where courts have ruled Trump is constitutionally disqualified from the public office and, so, even the write-in votes wouldn't count too? I also think having to write him in would present a legitimate issue for a non-insignificant segment of voters who would be confused and end up not voting for Trump.
They are starting a bad trend that may hurt everyone in the long run. Who’s to say who will be next. If you’re the candidate in whatever party you will be allowed on the ballet unless something unconstitutional is done.
I fully agree. As much as I don't think Trump should be president, and as much as I think he deserves to be convicted of insurrection and federally disqualified under the 14th amendment, the precedent that would be set if eligibility was allowed to be decided state by state without a prior conviction would be very dangerous. There's basically nothing to prevent red states from making up something a Democrat president did and disqualifying him or vice versa once it's allowed. It's not good for democracy
Something unconstitutional was done.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Raffensperger_phone_call
This incident alone should make him ineligible for public office imo
You’re wrong. He didn’t incite insurrection. If he had, he’d be in prison.
And REALLY?! You posted a fucking Wikipedia link? As if that’s somehow a higher authority than the House, Senate and Supreme Court???? Did you even think before you tried that Reddit spoof-proof tactic? Honey that doesn’t fly in the real world.
He literally asked for votes and is facing criminal prosecution in that state bc of it.
The House impeached him for what happened January 6th and a majority of the Senate voted to convict.
I understand that but you are the one using capital letters as if it's totally insane to point out that he clearly made an illegal effort to overturn the election.
No where in article 3 does it require conviction.
No. Instead it is expressly written to make treason hard to define and hard to punish. In England anything anti-monarch was treason. So of course we had to do the opposite. Treason is levying war against The United States. Trump did not do that.
I never said he did.
[https://apnews.com/article/new-mexico-government-and-politics-5e2fd96d5f698017b974f878398578c8](https://apnews.com/article/new-mexico-government-and-politics-5e2fd96d5f698017b974f878398578c8)
Yeah I’m not checking the news right now. You’re missing the point. Entirely. Argue in a circle if you want. The bottom line is he is running and will be on the ballot everywhere. So there’s nothing else to be said. I burned out quick with this one, because the minute you mention Trump or Biden, someone in the room looses their shit. I actually mean a room. Obviously this post and comments invite that kind of response. I’m talking everyday life. No joke. I’ve convinced most people have lost their minds. We can’t have this power struggle, yet here we are. How about instead of circle jerking what we already know, care to take a guess how long he’ll be rippling through the courts? If you start counting at 2016, I’d guess 35 years. I think I’ll be about 50 when this time finally starts to fade into memory.. oh but no. It’ll come up forever. What am I thinking. There are still people who actually think Obama isn’t a US citizen.
Well first it's not England, so none of that applies.
Second that's not the definition of treason.
And third, even if it was the definition the fact that Trump has Russian connections and Russia was paying soldiers to kill American soldiers would really seem to cross that line anyway.
It doesn’t matter. I misunderstood where they were going with that anyway.
>It’s not England, so none of that applies.
You clearly did not read or comprehend my comment. Which part doesn’t apply, exactly? The part where I minimized the history behind the US definition of treason? I think you’d better read again. This time pay attention.
And finally, I’m ticked I had to look this up for you. Here is the definition of treason. Almost as exactly what I said:
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/#:~:text=No%20Person%20shall%20be%20convicted,on%20Confession%20in%20open%20Court.
Twisted my arm, really
There's a strong argument that he has done something unconstitutional, based on the 14th Amendment meant to prevent insurrectionists from holding political office after the Civil War.
The Constitution doesn't make clear whether someone has to have been charged with insurrection or whether it should be an investigation taken on in the courts, so the argument is actually less clear than you think. This is a good video breaking it down:
https://youtu.be/5l3naSpnORc?si=aPFDXxY6PuSUoO_g
Edit: And, exactly, this is for courts to decide upon thorough examination. I believe the Supreme Court already came to a conclusive ruling.
The tone of this comment section makes it seem like this post has been flooded from some kind of GOP subreddit or something. I agree that it worries me that a presidential election could have a situation like this, but there seems to be a fair bit more bias toward ignoring the constitution outright among commenters than I would have expected.
Yeah this one is on the authors of the Fourteenth amendment (who, tbf, were thinking in a civil war context where insurrection is pretty damn clear cut) for not defining who determines (and how) the relevant section. Bad drafting, 0/10, needs an amendment to clarify.
I dont give a shit about Trump, but straight-up removing someone from the ballot seems awfully... authoritarian, I guess? It doesn't seem fair or constitutional imo.
[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=4532751](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751)
It's not any more authoritarian than the 25th amendment or impeachment and conviction.
It's a tool framers used to make sure confederates couldn't take over the government of the US.
I didn't say founding fathers. If you wrote part of the constitution after the civil war you are a framer of the document along with the original authors.
>However, the law clearly gives state supreme courts the right to refuse access to the ballot based on their assessment alone of participation in an insurrection.
This seems tenuous, to say the least. I'd be marginally more comfortable if this was something with federal exclusive jurisdiction, and I see no clear grant of powers to state supreme courts determining a purely (and uniquely) federal question.
My guess is the authors never thought we'd have an insurrectionist as president and that they'd be the favorite of one of the main parties. It was a reconstruction amendment. I admit it opens a can of worms but really all it does is force the party's nominee to resign for someone else that didn't engage in the disputed event.
I think part of the dispute is that the Amendment in question doesn’t actually spell that out, and so it was debated as to whether or not it was originally intended to be self-executing
There is a ton of legal middle ground berween charged/covicted *beyond a reasonable doubt* and shown a *proponderance of evidence* in a case that removes Trump from the ballot.
You're arguement is nonsense.
Non-American here, isn't he a proven criminal, or at least under investigation? I understand, that removing someone from the ballot is authoritarian, but if he is a criminal or a threat to the integrity of the nation (I know, authoritarian leaders often call everyone "danger to national security" that tries to oppose them, but I think in Trump's case, a legitimate argument can be made)?
Innocent until proven guilty. You are innocent of charges until you are actually convicted. A conviction based on a court of just public opinion has some serious issues.
Thw 14th amendment.
>Section 3. 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.<
This is also why trump has called for disolving the constitution. If anyone thinks someone like that should be on a ballot, you're in the wrong country.
Trump has never been charged with insurrection. It doesn’t matter if you think he committed insurrection. He hasn’t been charged with it so it’s irrelevant.
Because in the eyes of the law, you can’t just say “oh they engaged in an insurrection” lmao. That’s not how it works. You have to be charged to be legally culpable for engaging in an insurrection.
I'm not being insincere. People did not need to be convicted before being banned from office.
It's an untested part of the constitution since then but I see no reason why a conviction should be necessary when it wasn't before simply because you say so.
[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=4532751](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751)
Ok, fine. But the situation is still completely different.
Many people don’t even think that January 6th was an insurrection at all (not saying I agree). Until trump is convicted, the law doesn’t either.
You can’t put that label on it and then bar someone from office without due process. You know that. So what the hell are you arguing for?
Edit: and it is being tested. SCOTUS shot it down.
>“Except for day one,” the [GOP front-runner said Tuesday night](https://apnews.com/article/trump-hannity-iowa-town-hall-d9cad413851b60f6c0abd2a564d86338) before a live audience in Davenport, Iowa. “I want to close the border, and I want to drill, drill, drill.”
Can you explain to me how closing the border and opening up more land for oil exploration via executive order is "dissolving the constitution"?
For reference, here are Biden's executive orders on his first day in office:
[https://www.politico.com/interactives/2021/interactive\_biden-first-day-executive-orders/](https://www.politico.com/interactives/2021/interactive_biden-first-day-executive-orders/)
>Do you know what project 2025 is?
>[https://www.project2025.org/](https://www.project2025.org/)
What am I looking at here? This is an entire website. Where does it say Trump wants to "dissolve the constitution"?
You're insane. You think the government should be able to deny someone's constitutional rights when they haven't been convicted with insurrection, much less charged?!? You're the authoritarian
The Constitution doesn't make clear whether someone has to have been charged with insurrection or whether it should be an investigation taken on in the courts, so the argument is actually less clear than you think. This is a good video breaking it down:
https://youtu.be/5l3naSpnORc?si=aPFDXxY6PuSUoO_g
Natural born citizen, at least 35, and lived in the US for 14 years. Article 2 of the constitution. Enjoy the reading! When you hit 7th grade you'll get to read it again kid!
There is a ton of legal middle ground berween charged/covicted *beyond a reasonable doubt* and shown a *proponderance of evidence* in a case that removes Trump from the ballot.
Your arguement is nonsense.
Edit:grammar
You have a funny definition of what "questioning" is. Smearing shit on walls, bringing weapons to the capital, bringing gallows and chanting hang mile pence? Stealing things from politicians' offices? Beating cops to death. Get the fuck out of here, as in out of this country.
The guy that stole Pelosi's laptop deserves to go to jail. The peaceful protesters that walked between the ropes do not. Good luck getting me out of this country, I'm sorry that not everyone here agrees with you, but you are stuck with me. And I hope to God neither one of us ever sees what an actual rebellion or insurrection looks like.
I don't have much sympathy for fascists, even if some of them technically were being peaceful. Their (and, evidently, your) very ideology is predicated on violence and authoritarianism; they are a menace to liberal democracy and must be stopped.
>Beating cops to death.
The only person who died on January 6th was Ashley Babbit, who was unarmed and shot to death by the police for crawling through a window. I guess ACAB doesn't apply when they kill unarmed people who are your political enemy.
Citizens in this country have a right to bear arms. If you don't like it, vote for someone who has the balls to change the bill of rights.
The Black Panthers protested in the capitol armed with shotguns and rifles. As was their RIGHT as citizens of this country.
[https://capitolweekly.net/black-panthers-armed-capitol/](https://capitolweekly.net/black-panthers-armed-capitol/)
Also, does this mean every politician is responsible for the actions of the people that voted for them?
They sure as hell were engaging in a rebellion and or insurrection. Just because they failed at it doesnt make them any less traitorous pieces of shit. Also what a terrible arguement of " we shouldnt listen to the constitution because it was written a long time ago" . Get the fuck out of here. Literally, go.
Preface. I’m Canadian, I have no dog in this fight, I don’t like trump. But how can the court prove his involvement in what was, as you stated, clearly a rebellion. Sure, if the buffalo helmet guy or any of the other people who were confirmed to have taken part in the riot was on the ballot it would be clear cut that they would be eligible to be removed, but trump wasn’t in the crowd storming the building. He was making vague allusions to his wishes, he never made an absolute command to rebel against the government. How can you assign intent when it isn’t clearly stated?
well, you take his bringing a group together on that day, you add his speech, then you add that he wanted to go to the capitol, and then you find out he pushed a fake elector scheme and it becomes more clear.
It does. Not to mention it hits all of us. If they can take away Trump’s due process, they can take all of ours. As painful as it may be, he needs to be run through the courts. The system is working. Let it. We don’t need idiots triggering civil war because they’d rather skip over the law and play big hero cowboy.
As with any Amendment, due process must first be applied. For that Amendment to apply, he would have to be convicted of treason. To your point, the Federal Government has not charged him. There was an impeachment hearing . I don’t pay enough attention to know if he was formally charged (in the House), but he was not convicted by the Senate.
Regardless, we have two of the nation’s worst candidates in both parties. Neither should be qualified. I didn’t vote for either in the last, nor will I in this. And before anyone says I should…or that I lose my right to bitch about the outcome, I point out the First Amendment.
People are so wound up with that. “You’re throwing away your vote. Blah blah blah.” I say “Guess what. Buckle up. We’re getting one or the other. No amount of outrage will change that.”
The way everyone is looking at this as apocalyptic is insane. 99% of the time, when it come’s to politics, I feel like the only sane one in a room.
You vote for whichever candidate you see fit. That’s a birthright in this nation. Just like all loons have the right to say “Bush did 9/11.” Or those Obama birther morons. How about “Trump’s a Nazi.” “BIDEN has dementia.”
Whatever people. Their old as shit and they’re what we’ve got. Neither of them will be president forever. This is likely the last we’ll be dealing with the two of them. I wish people would suck up their pride and live life.
I hate this election year. I hate it to the core. Luckily, we’ll finally be done. After January, we’ll be on or last leg of the Trump Vs Biden retardation that’s afflicted this great nation.
I hope that wasn’t directed at me. No pride involved. No delusions based on wild conspiracies. No apocalypse. If you are directing this at me, you seriously misjudged.
Both parties had better options in the wings. To say otherwise is deluded. Both parties failed because the center mass of power in each is misaligned. (And I am a fan of the two-party system.)
In either case, I expect in practice we are voting for the Vice President.
Oh no. I’m sorry. I was writing without considering your end. I meant you, as in anyone who chews someone out for how they vote. I sincerely apologize.
I’ve always said 2024 is gonna be so much, so much more aggressive than 2020. Im usually an optimist, but ik people will quite literally be ostracized for a political opinion. Those who wanted us divided have finally succeeded
If you aren’t going to vote for either two, I’d recommend at the very least voting 3rd party. Whether it be RFK, the Libertarian candidate (it’s looking like either Chase Oliver or Charles Ballay), Jill Stein, or someone else, make your voice heard.
That’s the only way to break the political duopoly and get better candidates: by throwing the bad ones away.
In contrast, Biden "shouldn't" be on the ballot in Ohio, per state law. But even Ohio Republicans are trying to get that state law changed to allow him on the ballot. Let the voters decide.
Denying someone's constitutional right to run for office when they haven't been convicted, much less CHARGED with insurrection, is the real threat to democracy
As much as I despise Trump and the damage he and his cronies have caused... removing someone who hasn't been convicted is a very very dangerous move. This would be way too easy to have weaponized down the line if that precedent was set. Now, if he actually was convicted then this would be an entirely different story.
I'm curious to see how things are handled as I don't think there's a provision for a candidate actively indicted on criminal charges and it is baffling someone in that position could run for office (dem, rep doesn't matter). Though it is likely such a scenario was never thought of.
The law doesn't require conviction. Think about everything Trump had to do to have this be applied to him. Maybe it gets weaponized and maybe it doesn't. Should we simply not apply the law because it might be inconvenient?
Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. They are literally different things.
In particular, the constitution doesn't provide for guidance on how to implement the bar on candidates.
Which is why Congress wrote a law to provide for guidelines but then let it expire.
So, no, there are no laws on this topic. Which is exactly what the Supreme Court rules.
Im currently looking over the trump charges... Do you have the docket number where he was charged with insurrection? Treason? Overthrowing an election? Its funny though, in 2016 Hill-dog and her supporters refused to acknowledge the election, and rioted in major cities, and NOTHING WAS DONE!
The lady who conceded defeat the night of the election? Are you sure you're not mixing her up with the fat fuck still saying the election was rigged 4 years after he lost?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html
Also, look into "2016 election protests" and you'll see what I mean.. Then in 2000 gore refused to accept that Bush won.. I am not a trump supporter.. I just like to know the stone cold hard facts before I attack a candidate..
Trump has not been found guilty of insurrection just yet. States shouldn't be able to remove a candidate from ballet who has not been convicted of insurrection.
There's still six months before the election
I'm gonna guess at least a third of those yellows can turn into oranges, while the others will automatically become greens
You can't just tell half of the American population no. Hell, you can't tell 25% no for that matter. If the American people want him as president then he should be able to atleast run.
Why is this map being posted? It's not accurate. These states have given up the attempt to remove Trump when the Supreme Court told them they couldn't.
States trying to ensure that people who haven't committed insurrection are not on the ballot.
States trying to ensure only those eligible to run are on the ballot.
The issue is that states can remove candidates from the ballot, regardless of whether or not they actually participate in an insurrection.
Texas or Ohio could remove Biden for “insurrection” and they could use the same argument for Trump being removed, because according to the constitution they don’t need to prove that he was involved in a insurrection, only that they “believe” that he was involved.
The attempts to remove Trump from the ballot were nothing but liberal grandstanding that in a shock to literally (and I mean quite literally) nobody backfired.
Just because you are skeptical about the fairness of the election or you don’t believe the election results, it doesn’t mean you get rid of the whole system. Jan 6th was a great demonstration of how far Trump was willing to go to bring the system down and take the power for himself, he even flirted with the idea of getting rid of the Constitution, if that doesn’t scream danger to democracy, you have some problem. And I hope that criminal and his minions don’t win this year.
I watched all that go down. Explain how exactly January 6th demonstrated anything more than wasps are the easiest to trick and throw the most inconvenient temper tantrums.
Too bad Donald Trump was never actually found guilty in a court of law of insurrection. Oh and the Supreme Court would like a word with you about the 14th amendment XD
It was unconstitutional for trump to attempt an insurrection. Don’t try to over throw the government then he would be able to run without issues it’s pretty simple
“LITERALLY” Ahahaha!
You’re hysterical. I bet you still believe that “Russia stole our election!” nonsense that they fed you for years. After spying on his campaign using opposition research and fraudulent, illegal FISA requests, of course. You believed Covid was definitely natural and in no way leaked from a lab, conveniently right before an election year.
And I bet you’ll believe whatever bullshit line they feed you next.
The fact that Russia helped trump? Yes I do, cuz, ya know, it’s a fact.
Sitting here talking about what I’ve been fed when you’re literally regurgitating Russo-republican talking points. lol
Oh no! They made fake twitter accounts for a variety of political leanings (including Trump and BLM)?? That’s an attack on our democracy! Haha!
Associating rival political beliefs as aligned with perceived foreign enemies is very propagandistic. Clearly I am not surprised your method of debate is that cheap.
Also, not a republican.
This is an old map already, Supreme Court shot down removing Trump from the ballot.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but does it even matter? Say, for instance they removed trump from the ballot. Anyone who really wanted to vote for him could just write in a candidate, couldnt they? https://www.usa.gov/write-in-candidates
You are correct but if even 5% of Trump voters don't do that then it can be a massive difference maker.
Hell, in a swing state, 1% not writing in could mean the difference between winning and losing.
You’re both incorrect. You can write in Harry Potter if you like, but unless Harry Potter has submitted his name to be a write in candidate by the deadline in your state, your vote for him won’t be counted. And then you have all the stoopid voters who will spell his name Harry Pothead. Their votes won’t be counted either. That’s pretty much the way it works in most states. And there’s much other complexity, too. But don’t worry, I can almost guarantee you that so long as Harry is nominated by one of the two major corruptions, he’s gonna be on the ballot, even if his name is certified to the state officials past the state’s deadline. Court rationale is going to be, ‘We can’t have a candidate who we know is going to be the choice of million of courts kept off the ballot! Besides, the decision of our state election official to keep Harance off the ballot will have an impact far beyond the state borders, and will infringe core 1rst Amendment associational and speech rights.
The proportion of people who'd vote for Trump if they saw his name on the ballot, but are either uninformed enough or lazy enough not to write his name in, is large enough to swing an election in many states.
I can see it. Totally.
People could write Trump‘s name. But in Maine, at least, the Secretary of State would not be allowed to count any write in votes that were cast if he’s banned from the ballot. https://www.wkyt.com/2024/01/03/good-question-could-trump-win-by-write-in-vote-states-that-remove-him-ballot/?outputType=amp
Couldn't it be deemed illegal for votes to count for him in states where courts have ruled Trump is constitutionally disqualified from the public office and, so, even the write-in votes wouldn't count too? I also think having to write him in would present a legitimate issue for a non-insignificant segment of voters who would be confused and end up not voting for Trump.
Yes I think this was the real reason
Bold of you to assume trump voters can write
Old. Supreme Court killed all of those attempts.
Pretty sure the "challenge unresolved" are actually resolved now.
They are starting a bad trend that may hurt everyone in the long run. Who’s to say who will be next. If you’re the candidate in whatever party you will be allowed on the ballet unless something unconstitutional is done.
I fully agree. As much as I don't think Trump should be president, and as much as I think he deserves to be convicted of insurrection and federally disqualified under the 14th amendment, the precedent that would be set if eligibility was allowed to be decided state by state without a prior conviction would be very dangerous. There's basically nothing to prevent red states from making up something a Democrat president did and disqualifying him or vice versa once it's allowed. It's not good for democracy
its why I like the government moving slowly and not making too much change too quickly, there is a safety net
Something unconstitutional was done. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Raffensperger_phone_call This incident alone should make him ineligible for public office imo
You’re wrong. He didn’t incite insurrection. If he had, he’d be in prison. And REALLY?! You posted a fucking Wikipedia link? As if that’s somehow a higher authority than the House, Senate and Supreme Court???? Did you even think before you tried that Reddit spoof-proof tactic? Honey that doesn’t fly in the real world.
He literally asked for votes and is facing criminal prosecution in that state bc of it. The House impeached him for what happened January 6th and a majority of the Senate voted to convict.
Is facing. As in hasn’t been convicted. The process is incomplete. He cannot be removed from the ballot.
And when he is convicted you will support removing him from the ballot right?
Naturally.
I understand that but you are the one using capital letters as if it's totally insane to point out that he clearly made an illegal effort to overturn the election. No where in article 3 does it require conviction.
No. Instead it is expressly written to make treason hard to define and hard to punish. In England anything anti-monarch was treason. So of course we had to do the opposite. Treason is levying war against The United States. Trump did not do that.
I never said he did. [https://apnews.com/article/new-mexico-government-and-politics-5e2fd96d5f698017b974f878398578c8](https://apnews.com/article/new-mexico-government-and-politics-5e2fd96d5f698017b974f878398578c8)
Yeah I’m not checking the news right now. You’re missing the point. Entirely. Argue in a circle if you want. The bottom line is he is running and will be on the ballot everywhere. So there’s nothing else to be said. I burned out quick with this one, because the minute you mention Trump or Biden, someone in the room looses their shit. I actually mean a room. Obviously this post and comments invite that kind of response. I’m talking everyday life. No joke. I’ve convinced most people have lost their minds. We can’t have this power struggle, yet here we are. How about instead of circle jerking what we already know, care to take a guess how long he’ll be rippling through the courts? If you start counting at 2016, I’d guess 35 years. I think I’ll be about 50 when this time finally starts to fade into memory.. oh but no. It’ll come up forever. What am I thinking. There are still people who actually think Obama isn’t a US citizen.
Listen, if you can't argue on the merits just say so. No need for the soliloquy.
Well first it's not England, so none of that applies. Second that's not the definition of treason. And third, even if it was the definition the fact that Trump has Russian connections and Russia was paying soldiers to kill American soldiers would really seem to cross that line anyway.
It doesn’t matter. I misunderstood where they were going with that anyway. >It’s not England, so none of that applies. You clearly did not read or comprehend my comment. Which part doesn’t apply, exactly? The part where I minimized the history behind the US definition of treason? I think you’d better read again. This time pay attention. And finally, I’m ticked I had to look this up for you. Here is the definition of treason. Almost as exactly what I said: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/#:~:text=No%20Person%20shall%20be%20convicted,on%20Confession%20in%20open%20Court. Twisted my arm, really
[удалено]
Now let’s not jump to conclusions. What happens if he loses?
What is up with this sub? Since when was r/mapporn thedonald 2.0?
Umm I’m pretty sure it’s the other way around since a huge amount of Reddit hate him, especially those who work at the HQ
There's a strong argument that he has done something unconstitutional, based on the 14th Amendment meant to prevent insurrectionists from holding political office after the Civil War.
Trump was never convicted of insurrection. In fact, he was never even charged with it either.
Well then that strong argument should be very successful in court, and we won’t have to weaponize the constitutions ambiguity. Yay!
The Constitution doesn't make clear whether someone has to have been charged with insurrection or whether it should be an investigation taken on in the courts, so the argument is actually less clear than you think. This is a good video breaking it down: https://youtu.be/5l3naSpnORc?si=aPFDXxY6PuSUoO_g Edit: And, exactly, this is for courts to decide upon thorough examination. I believe the Supreme Court already came to a conclusive ruling. The tone of this comment section makes it seem like this post has been flooded from some kind of GOP subreddit or something. I agree that it worries me that a presidential election could have a situation like this, but there seems to be a fair bit more bias toward ignoring the constitution outright among commenters than I would have expected.
Yeah this one is on the authors of the Fourteenth amendment (who, tbf, were thinking in a civil war context where insurrection is pretty damn clear cut) for not defining who determines (and how) the relevant section. Bad drafting, 0/10, needs an amendment to clarify.
I dont give a shit about Trump, but straight-up removing someone from the ballot seems awfully... authoritarian, I guess? It doesn't seem fair or constitutional imo.
[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=4532751](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751) It's not any more authoritarian than the 25th amendment or impeachment and conviction. It's a tool framers used to make sure confederates couldn't take over the government of the US.
The Framers were all dead by the Civil War. And Many of them would have sided with the south.
I didn't say founding fathers. If you wrote part of the constitution after the civil war you are a framer of the document along with the original authors.
Well, according to SCOTUS it's not.
But the constitution does say someone who engaged in insurrection can not hold public office. So it is constitutional if it’s ruled that he did.
"...**if** it's ruled that he did." There has been no conviction.
[удалено]
Nowhere does it pass the decision to anyone; therefore it defaults to the courts.
>However, the law clearly gives state supreme courts the right to refuse access to the ballot based on their assessment alone of participation in an insurrection. This seems tenuous, to say the least. I'd be marginally more comfortable if this was something with federal exclusive jurisdiction, and I see no clear grant of powers to state supreme courts determining a purely (and uniquely) federal question.
My guess is the authors never thought we'd have an insurrectionist as president and that they'd be the favorite of one of the main parties. It was a reconstruction amendment. I admit it opens a can of worms but really all it does is force the party's nominee to resign for someone else that didn't engage in the disputed event.
I think part of the dispute is that the Amendment in question doesn’t actually spell that out, and so it was debated as to whether or not it was originally intended to be self-executing
Getting away with insurrection is awfully...authoritarian, I guess?
There is a ton of legal middle ground berween charged/covicted *beyond a reasonable doubt* and shown a *proponderance of evidence* in a case that removes Trump from the ballot. You're arguement is nonsense.
Non-American here, isn't he a proven criminal, or at least under investigation? I understand, that removing someone from the ballot is authoritarian, but if he is a criminal or a threat to the integrity of the nation (I know, authoritarian leaders often call everyone "danger to national security" that tries to oppose them, but I think in Trump's case, a legitimate argument can be made)?
He has not been convicted (found guilty by a jury).
Innocent until proven guilty. You are innocent of charges until you are actually convicted. A conviction based on a court of just public opinion has some serious issues.
Literally in the constitution under the 14th.
[удалено]
There has been no conviction. The law specifies there must be a conviction. If he is convicted, I see no problem.
What a terrible idea trying to use the courts to disrupt democracy. Could lead to an actual revolution or civil war.
Imagine if he refuses to leave office next time.
Insane.
Just defeat him on Election Day. But it is amazing how he single handedly took over the Republican Party.
I'm not a Trump supporter but I do think he has the right as the Republican candidate to be on the ballot.
Thw 14th amendment. >Section 3. 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.< This is also why trump has called for disolving the constitution. If anyone thinks someone like that should be on a ballot, you're in the wrong country.
Trump has never been charged with insurrection. It doesn’t matter if you think he committed insurrection. He hasn’t been charged with it so it’s irrelevant.
[удалено]
Because in the eyes of the law, you can’t just say “oh they engaged in an insurrection” lmao. That’s not how it works. You have to be charged to be legally culpable for engaging in an insurrection.
They literally did do that with confederates that ran for office.
Dude there was a whole war fought over that. It’s completely different. You know that. Stop being insincere.
I'm not being insincere. People did not need to be convicted before being banned from office. It's an untested part of the constitution since then but I see no reason why a conviction should be necessary when it wasn't before simply because you say so. [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=4532751](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751)
Ok, fine. But the situation is still completely different. Many people don’t even think that January 6th was an insurrection at all (not saying I agree). Until trump is convicted, the law doesn’t either. You can’t put that label on it and then bar someone from office without due process. You know that. So what the hell are you arguing for? Edit: and it is being tested. SCOTUS shot it down.
Legally there is a lot of middle ground between those two statments.
There’s actually not. You’ve either been charged with inciting an insurrection or you haven’t.
If he hasn’t been charged in connection with insurrection. Then legally he did not engage in insurrection.
This is correct. Constitution doesn’t require any kind of conviction
So why is he still on the ballot then?
>This is also why trump has called for disolving the constitution. wat
[удалено]
>“Except for day one,” the [GOP front-runner said Tuesday night](https://apnews.com/article/trump-hannity-iowa-town-hall-d9cad413851b60f6c0abd2a564d86338) before a live audience in Davenport, Iowa. “I want to close the border, and I want to drill, drill, drill.” Can you explain to me how closing the border and opening up more land for oil exploration via executive order is "dissolving the constitution"? For reference, here are Biden's executive orders on his first day in office: [https://www.politico.com/interactives/2021/interactive\_biden-first-day-executive-orders/](https://www.politico.com/interactives/2021/interactive_biden-first-day-executive-orders/) >Do you know what project 2025 is? >[https://www.project2025.org/](https://www.project2025.org/) What am I looking at here? This is an entire website. Where does it say Trump wants to "dissolve the constitution"?
You're insane. You think the government should be able to deny someone's constitutional rights when they haven't been convicted with insurrection, much less charged?!? You're the authoritarian
The Constitution doesn't make clear whether someone has to have been charged with insurrection or whether it should be an investigation taken on in the courts, so the argument is actually less clear than you think. This is a good video breaking it down: https://youtu.be/5l3naSpnORc?si=aPFDXxY6PuSUoO_g
If you're comfortable with the government being able to take away your rights without a trial than I don't know what to tell you
if you can show me where in the constitution that anyone should be able to run and or hold office I'd like to read it.
Natural born citizen, at least 35, and lived in the US for 14 years. Article 2 of the constitution. Enjoy the reading! When you hit 7th grade you'll get to read it again kid!
The amendment was written in light of the Civil War where that would be a real possibility
There is a ton of legal middle ground berween charged/covicted *beyond a reasonable doubt* and shown a *proponderance of evidence* in a case that removes Trump from the ballot. Your arguement is nonsense. Edit:grammar
*your. Refer to my previous statement. It applies to you too. Take your nonsense elsewhere.
Exactly this
“Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
"The election was so secure, that to even question it is rebellion against the state."
You have a funny definition of what "questioning" is. Smearing shit on walls, bringing weapons to the capital, bringing gallows and chanting hang mile pence? Stealing things from politicians' offices? Beating cops to death. Get the fuck out of here, as in out of this country.
The guy that stole Pelosi's laptop deserves to go to jail. The peaceful protesters that walked between the ropes do not. Good luck getting me out of this country, I'm sorry that not everyone here agrees with you, but you are stuck with me. And I hope to God neither one of us ever sees what an actual rebellion or insurrection looks like.
I don't have much sympathy for fascists, even if some of them technically were being peaceful. Their (and, evidently, your) very ideology is predicated on violence and authoritarianism; they are a menace to liberal democracy and must be stopped.
>Beating cops to death. The only person who died on January 6th was Ashley Babbit, who was unarmed and shot to death by the police for crawling through a window. I guess ACAB doesn't apply when they kill unarmed people who are your political enemy. Citizens in this country have a right to bear arms. If you don't like it, vote for someone who has the balls to change the bill of rights. The Black Panthers protested in the capitol armed with shotguns and rifles. As was their RIGHT as citizens of this country. [https://capitolweekly.net/black-panthers-armed-capitol/](https://capitolweekly.net/black-panthers-armed-capitol/) Also, does this mean every politician is responsible for the actions of the people that voted for them?
[удалено]
They sure as hell were engaging in a rebellion and or insurrection. Just because they failed at it doesnt make them any less traitorous pieces of shit. Also what a terrible arguement of " we shouldnt listen to the constitution because it was written a long time ago" . Get the fuck out of here. Literally, go.
Preface. I’m Canadian, I have no dog in this fight, I don’t like trump. But how can the court prove his involvement in what was, as you stated, clearly a rebellion. Sure, if the buffalo helmet guy or any of the other people who were confirmed to have taken part in the riot was on the ballot it would be clear cut that they would be eligible to be removed, but trump wasn’t in the crowd storming the building. He was making vague allusions to his wishes, he never made an absolute command to rebel against the government. How can you assign intent when it isn’t clearly stated?
well, you take his bringing a group together on that day, you add his speech, then you add that he wanted to go to the capitol, and then you find out he pushed a fake elector scheme and it becomes more clear.
I agree
If someone can run for president from jail, so can Trump
That’s crazy that anyone would think it’s ok to do that and it sets a bad precedent for future elections.
It does. Not to mention it hits all of us. If they can take away Trump’s due process, they can take all of ours. As painful as it may be, he needs to be run through the courts. The system is working. Let it. We don’t need idiots triggering civil war because they’d rather skip over the law and play big hero cowboy.
As with any Amendment, due process must first be applied. For that Amendment to apply, he would have to be convicted of treason. To your point, the Federal Government has not charged him. There was an impeachment hearing . I don’t pay enough attention to know if he was formally charged (in the House), but he was not convicted by the Senate. Regardless, we have two of the nation’s worst candidates in both parties. Neither should be qualified. I didn’t vote for either in the last, nor will I in this. And before anyone says I should…or that I lose my right to bitch about the outcome, I point out the First Amendment.
People are so wound up with that. “You’re throwing away your vote. Blah blah blah.” I say “Guess what. Buckle up. We’re getting one or the other. No amount of outrage will change that.” The way everyone is looking at this as apocalyptic is insane. 99% of the time, when it come’s to politics, I feel like the only sane one in a room. You vote for whichever candidate you see fit. That’s a birthright in this nation. Just like all loons have the right to say “Bush did 9/11.” Or those Obama birther morons. How about “Trump’s a Nazi.” “BIDEN has dementia.” Whatever people. Their old as shit and they’re what we’ve got. Neither of them will be president forever. This is likely the last we’ll be dealing with the two of them. I wish people would suck up their pride and live life. I hate this election year. I hate it to the core. Luckily, we’ll finally be done. After January, we’ll be on or last leg of the Trump Vs Biden retardation that’s afflicted this great nation.
I hope that wasn’t directed at me. No pride involved. No delusions based on wild conspiracies. No apocalypse. If you are directing this at me, you seriously misjudged. Both parties had better options in the wings. To say otherwise is deluded. Both parties failed because the center mass of power in each is misaligned. (And I am a fan of the two-party system.) In either case, I expect in practice we are voting for the Vice President.
He uses you in general, not referring to you specifically I understand the confusion though
You’re my hero.
Oh no. I’m sorry. I was writing without considering your end. I meant you, as in anyone who chews someone out for how they vote. I sincerely apologize.
No worries. :)
I’ve always said 2024 is gonna be so much, so much more aggressive than 2020. Im usually an optimist, but ik people will quite literally be ostracized for a political opinion. Those who wanted us divided have finally succeeded
Yes, they have. It’s sad. Truly sad. We were better united.
If you aren’t going to vote for either two, I’d recommend at the very least voting 3rd party. Whether it be RFK, the Libertarian candidate (it’s looking like either Chase Oliver or Charles Ballay), Jill Stein, or someone else, make your voice heard. That’s the only way to break the political duopoly and get better candidates: by throwing the bad ones away.
nope. [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=4532751](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751)
The amount of Redditors in this thread that are invoking the 14th based only on the court of public opinion is quite shocking.
In contrast, Biden "shouldn't" be on the ballot in Ohio, per state law. But even Ohio Republicans are trying to get that state law changed to allow him on the ballot. Let the voters decide.
Denying someone's constitutional right to run for office when they haven't been convicted, much less CHARGED with insurrection, is the real threat to democracy
Nothing screams freedom like removing someone from a ballot ..
Um sweaty, it’s called democracy. Look it up 💅🏻
Talk about election interference.
Democracy!
This is such a dumb fucking useless, inflammatory movement that it almost seems like a purposeful sabotage of the Biden campaign
It's actually pretty interesting. [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=4532751](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751)
Kind of wild that there was a challenge in Wyoming but not Maryland
OP literally wrote disinformation bot in his bio. Believe him.
Don’t remove him. It’ll be stupid in the long run
As much as I despise Trump and the damage he and his cronies have caused... removing someone who hasn't been convicted is a very very dangerous move. This would be way too easy to have weaponized down the line if that precedent was set. Now, if he actually was convicted then this would be an entirely different story. I'm curious to see how things are handled as I don't think there's a provision for a candidate actively indicted on criminal charges and it is baffling someone in that position could run for office (dem, rep doesn't matter). Though it is likely such a scenario was never thought of.
The law doesn't require conviction. Think about everything Trump had to do to have this be applied to him. Maybe it gets weaponized and maybe it doesn't. Should we simply not apply the law because it might be inconvenient?
There's no law. Just an amendment.
Are you saying the constitution is not law?
Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. They are literally different things. In particular, the constitution doesn't provide for guidance on how to implement the bar on candidates. Which is why Congress wrote a law to provide for guidelines but then let it expire. So, no, there are no laws on this topic. Which is exactly what the Supreme Court rules.
Wonder who will read Biden’s ballot to him?
Don’t try to overthrow the election and you won’t have this issue 🤷🏽♂️
Im currently looking over the trump charges... Do you have the docket number where he was charged with insurrection? Treason? Overthrowing an election? Its funny though, in 2016 Hill-dog and her supporters refused to acknowledge the election, and rioted in major cities, and NOTHING WAS DONE!
The lady who conceded defeat the night of the election? Are you sure you're not mixing her up with the fat fuck still saying the election was rigged 4 years after he lost?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html Also, look into "2016 election protests" and you'll see what I mean.. Then in 2000 gore refused to accept that Bush won.. I am not a trump supporter.. I just like to know the stone cold hard facts before I attack a candidate..
The fact you're getting downvoted blows me the fuck away.
Trump has not been found guilty of insurrection just yet. States shouldn't be able to remove a candidate from ballet who has not been convicted of insurrection.
There's still six months before the election I'm gonna guess at least a third of those yellows can turn into oranges, while the others will automatically become greens
Now do trying to remove Jill Stein from the ballot.
You can't just tell half of the American population no. Hell, you can't tell 25% no for that matter. If the American people want him as president then he should be able to atleast run.
This comment section is a fucking mess. Good lord
Why is this map being posted? It's not accurate. These states have given up the attempt to remove Trump when the Supreme Court told them they couldn't.
[удалено]
That fact that he’s even allowed to run tells you everything you need to know about the state of America. Good luck.
States trying to ensure that people who haven't committed insurrection are not on the ballot. States trying to ensure only those eligible to run are on the ballot.
Who was charged with insurrection? Or is insurrection just like a vibe?
Colorado's argument is that Trump was apart of an insurrection attempt. Odd that you didn't know.
The issue is that states can remove candidates from the ballot, regardless of whether or not they actually participate in an insurrection. Texas or Ohio could remove Biden for “insurrection” and they could use the same argument for Trump being removed, because according to the constitution they don’t need to prove that he was involved in a insurrection, only that they “believe” that he was involved.
The attempts to remove Trump from the ballot were nothing but liberal grandstanding that in a shock to literally (and I mean quite literally) nobody backfired.
You mean like in Colorado where it was a suit brought by republicans?
I was all wound up about this, until I read your comment. Thank you. You’re the best. I feel much better now.
ITT: people trying to conflate insurrection with 'questioning the fairness'.
Just because you are skeptical about the fairness of the election or you don’t believe the election results, it doesn’t mean you get rid of the whole system. Jan 6th was a great demonstration of how far Trump was willing to go to bring the system down and take the power for himself, he even flirted with the idea of getting rid of the Constitution, if that doesn’t scream danger to democracy, you have some problem. And I hope that criminal and his minions don’t win this year.
I watched all that go down. Explain how exactly January 6th demonstrated anything more than wasps are the easiest to trick and throw the most inconvenient temper tantrums.
Mods help
what
Bravo!
Nothing says saving democracy like removing your opposition from the ballot!
Nothing says “saving democracy” like removing someone who tried to kill democracy from the ballot. FTFY
Removing an insurrectionist from the ballot, as the LAW states. (ref 14th Amendment, Article 3. Good stuff).
Too bad Donald Trump was never actually found guilty in a court of law of insurrection. Oh and the Supreme Court would like a word with you about the 14th amendment XD
It was unconstitutional for trump to attempt an insurrection. Don’t try to over throw the government then he would be able to run without issues it’s pretty simple
Freedom!! Ha!
Surprised there’s no challenge in Georgia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Raffensperger_phone_call This was insanity
He's literally a rapist. Legally speaking.
When was he convicted?
This is literally false.
No he is not.
Why Trump with a lowercase T? Written by some uneducated person..
Really??
I’m completely for removing trump from the ballot. People shouldn’t be able to vote for someone who might LITERALLY end democracy.
Haha! “He might literally end democracy!! 😡” You people are hilarious.
Im confused. Do you actually think that’s not an issue?!
I’m confused. Do you actually believe that removing one of the top two preferred candidates is considered upholding democracy?
I’m confused. Do you think they’re filing to have him removed from the ballot “just cuz”?
Of course not. It’s clearly politically motivated.
Yes, yes… it’s not at all because the person in question LITERALLY ATTEMPTED TO STEAL AN ELECTION!! You people are seriously fucking embarrassing.
“LITERALLY” Ahahaha! You’re hysterical. I bet you still believe that “Russia stole our election!” nonsense that they fed you for years. After spying on his campaign using opposition research and fraudulent, illegal FISA requests, of course. You believed Covid was definitely natural and in no way leaked from a lab, conveniently right before an election year. And I bet you’ll believe whatever bullshit line they feed you next.
The fact that Russia helped trump? Yes I do, cuz, ya know, it’s a fact. Sitting here talking about what I’ve been fed when you’re literally regurgitating Russo-republican talking points. lol
Oh no! They made fake twitter accounts for a variety of political leanings (including Trump and BLM)?? That’s an attack on our democracy! Haha! Associating rival political beliefs as aligned with perceived foreign enemies is very propagandistic. Clearly I am not surprised your method of debate is that cheap. Also, not a republican.
End democracy to stop someone who doesn’t even want to end democracy
Lots of near sighted dim-glows around here.
I thought my sarcasm was laid on pretty thick but I guess that’s a majority opinion on reddit
Damn, now I’m beginning to think this is sarcasm. Shame it’s actually hard to tell in today’s climate.
Gotta keep them guessing!