They can only be called the Party of Responsibility if it's within the America region. Otherwise it's legally required to be called Sparkling Hypocrisy.
If the individual states don’t allow him on their ballot although he hasn’t been found guilty by courts or congress how long is it before the pre-election period is just red states eliminating blue nominees?
although he hasn’t been found guilty by courts or congress
It’s not a legal trial, it’s not a law, it’s an amendment to the constitution. No finding of guilt by a court is required.
This is bad precedent.
Blocking a presidential candidate from a states ballot because they violated the 14th amendment by engaging in an insurrection is bad precedent? Your argument is a little silly, Republicans already work in contradiction to the laws and constitution, doesn’t mean Democrats or the American people in general should not follow them.
What’s stopping the republicans from doing the same to Biden?
Did Biden participate in an insurrection? Unless some very big news went under the radar Republicans can’t disqualify Biden under the 14th amendment. That’s what you’re not seeing.
Your argument is don’t uphold the 14th amendment to the constitution because Republicans might try to unlawfully disqualify Biden from the ballot? I don’t believe you don’t understand how absurd that is.
What are they trying to impeach Biden for right now?
My argument is one person should have the ability to disqualify someone from running for president without being convicted by congress or the court.
I understand it’s an unpopular opinion but this is going to backfire when republicans start going after the democratic nominee for anything they imagine and they control the Secretary of State and state Supreme Court.
Elections aren’t run by the federal government, they’re run by the states. Also, Trump is not disqualified for “breaking a law”, he’s being disqualified under the terms of the 14th amendment section 3. He took an oath as president to support the constitution and then engaged in insurrection.
My argument is one person should have the ability to disqualify someone from running for president
Isn’t that what state’s rights is all about?
Do you believe that only certain things should be state’s rights?
Who decides which is which and if it’s the feds that do that would that mean that states have no rights?
Are you just going to skip over the main part of what I said there?
this is going to backfire when republicans start going after the democratic nominee for anything they imagine and they control the Secretary of State and state Supreme Court.
This is the important part but you’re just going to not address it?
I genuinely cannot tell if you're this obtuse or just trolling for attention so I'll give this one last shot and then I am done with you and your ridiculous statements.
this is going to backfire when republicans start going after the democratic nominee for anything they imagine and they control the Secretary of State and state Supreme Court.
This argument is "don't uphold the laws and rules of the US government because some group might retaliate". Do you honestly not understand how absolutely bonkers that is? Not to mention that it doesn't matter if these individual states uphold the 14th amendment on this issue because as your own question earlier pointed out, they are already engaging in retaliatory behavior with the impeachment against Biden, which is going nowhere.
What you either don't or are choosing not to understand is that these Republicans who are playing at these games right now are stuck. They cannot attack the Biden presidency and the Democratic Party within the same system of laws and rules of government because of existing checks and balances. They cannot completely subvert it because then it removes any legitimacy of the laws and system of government which is the one thing they deprive power from.
You also skipped over the part about States rights and elections being run by the individual states, not the federal government. This is the important part but you’re just going to not address it? Is it too hard? Or is it because those questions about States rights from my last comment were lifted word for word from one of your comments elsewhere on Lemmy and you got yourself stuck with contradictions?
You also skipped over the part about States rights and elections being run by the individual states
1965’s Voting Rights Act is a federal law that supersedes that ability of states to control everything and Colorado and Maine’s rulings are both on hold while they hear back from the federal Supreme Court.
So what were you saying with an out of context comment of mine?
Thanks. It’s a legit question though. A rogue Secretary of State could try but you know it’ll land in court and the Judiciary will decide based on the merits of the case.
Personally I support this precedent being set. We should uphold our laws to protect our country. If a Democrat ever lands in a similar situation then this precedent will be good to have had set.
But the GOP likes to pretend it is about states rights and Neil Gorsuch ostensibly has a lower court ruling related to this that would seem to favour blocking Trump. I have read the opinion And I didn't think it applied, but I'm an idiot on my couch with no legal training.
Both parties used to have a much more closed process that didn't announce a winner until their convention. The public primaries weren't anything more than a preference poll. Voters punished them both for it so severely that they changed.
Normally, I’d agree that a split encourages them to take the case, but political questions are extremely thorny. The fact that all these states are using their own processes to decide how to regulate their own elections tilts toward the system working the way it’s supposed to IMO.
Both of these arguments presuppose that principles and precedent are important factors for the current conservative majority to consider. Evidence says otherwise.