Supreme Court restores Trump to ballot, rejecting state attempts to ban him over Capitol attack
Supreme Court restores Trump to ballot, rejecting state attempts to ban him over Capitol attack
Supreme Court restores Trump to ballot, rejecting state attempts to ban him over Capitol attack.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Impeachment is expressly not a criminal procedure. It can't result in prison or fines, nor can it can't be pardoned by the President.
But it is the process by which a candidate can be removed from the ballot.
So if you want to go with Trump is criminally guilty of insurrection, and therefore ineligible to be on the ballot, when and where was the trial?
Being convicted of a crime doesn't disqualify anyone; people have run for President from prison. And most of the people who attacked Congress on Jan. 6 would not be disqualified for it even if they are convicted of a crime for it.
Disqualification is not a criminal punishment. It's not a crime to be 34 years old, for example, or to have been born in another country. But those are still disqualifications, and they are and always have been enforced by the states.
The specific crimes I was thinking of were: impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors or criminal conviction for treason.
"High crimes and misdemeanors" is a term of art that refers to acts committed by a public official which, while not necessarily a crime in themselves, are a violation of public trust.
For example, a president that accepted a foreign title of nobility without Congressional consent would have committed a high crime, but they couldn't be hauled into a criminal court for it.
Right.
Congress would control that, just like determining an insurrection was committed.
They didn't do that.
The media did.
The only thing Congress can do is remove Trump's disqualification under the 14th amendment. They can't decide whether he's disqualified in the first place.
The could have impeached him (again). And if the Senate convicted, he would have been ineligible to run again.
The 14th amendment doesn't require impeachment or criminal conviction, though. It's a completely different disqualification provision from impeachment.
For example, members of Congress cannot be impeached, but they can be disqualified under the 14th amendment. It makes no sense to roll impeachment and the 14th amendment into the same category of disqualification.
One judge "finds" he did it. What a lovely country we would have if that's all it took. No defense, no evidence needed. Just a judges opinion.
Short slope to a work camp. Maybe we could sort of concentrate all the people we disagree with in one.
All fair points that still ignore the guy who tried to overthrow the country where absolutely nothing was done about him, to hold him accountable.
If the feds are saying only they can protect the country from all enemies orange and domestic, there’s about 80 million active voters who might, uh, decidedly disagree. As opposed to some other adverb.
Point is that if the three blue states disqualify without a federal ruling and that stands, then you can bet a bunch of red states will declare Biden disqualified because he stole the election or some crap.
The place to direct frustration is the federal government for failing to make the requisite determination. Not at the unanimous supreme court decision that prevents chaotic behavior by the states with respect to federal races. There should be consistency state to state as to whether a candidate is fundamentally qualified or not.
If O'l Joe has 80 million voters, why are you worried about Trump being on the ballot? He can't possibly win.
Because that anti-american filth being on the ballot legitimizes treason.
Strong emotions there. Take a valium or smoke a bowl before you pop a valve.
You're a clown all over this thread, not a single point made or convert earned. Just shitposting, not even jeans, just snark.
Fuckin' dork.
Good luck making converts in a political thread.