Legal scholars increasingly raise constitutional argument that Trump should be barred from presidency
Legal scholars increasingly raise constitutional argument that Trump should be barred from presidency
Prominent conservative legal scholars are increasingly raising a constitutional argument that 2024 Republican candidate Donald Trump should be barred from the presidency because of his actions to overturn the previous presidential election result.
Prominent conservative legal scholars are increasingly raising a constitutional argument that 2024 Republican candidate Donald Trump should be barred from the presidency because of his actions to overturn the previous presidential election result.
You're viewing a single thread.
It's absolutely insane that it's even up for fucking debate.
Is it though? Im not from the US so dont really have a dog in the fight, but hear me out.
On what basis should he not be allowed? Because he's been indicted? Or because he was impeached? Both? Whatever the reason he would be barred would set a precedent.
Are there proper checks in place to ensure that the precedent set in place cant be met by simply stacking certain departments by a sitting president? The last thing you want is a pathway for a sitting president to effectively disqualify their opponent.
Clearly Trump is a monumental dickhead, but the problem is the people who vote for him more than anything
On what basis should he not be allowed?
Well, this is what the US constitution says:
Amendment XIV, 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.
The question is whether those words apply to his actions, and who exactly has the responsibility to interpret them.
If he's guilty of insurrection he should be accused, put to trial, and if convicted it should follow that he can't run for president anymore.
So your interpretation of the 14th amendment is that "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion" is the exclusive responsibility of the judicial system to determine? Maybe that's a valid interpretation, but it's not actually written in the text.
Ehm, yes it is. It's the text.
Laws don't say "a person who committed a crime, if the fact that this crime has been, in fact, committed by that person, has been decided by a judge, who has previously passed the exam necessary....". Laws imply a few basic assumptions. One assumption is, that every decision by "the government" is in principle dependent on the judicial system.
If the IRS decides, you're a millionaire now and taxes you accordingly, you can go to court and they will decide whether you're actually taxable as a millionaire.
Trump may be deemed a traitor/insurrectionist by Congress/Senate/DOJ or any other body and thus barred from running, but he too can simply go to court and let it be decided - and given that the supreme court is, let's say, rather in his favor, the result is rather obvious.
Trump will use any loophole, any slight formal error to get around this. So you have to have a really water tight case.
or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
Hundreds of rioters and those directly involved with the proud boys have pleaded guilty for their role in the instruction. Many of them giving sworn testimony stating that Trump himself gave them a call to action with his words, tweets and actions.
So even if Trump himself isn't convicted on the charges that he is facing, him giving aid and comfort to those who have already been convicted should itself bar him from public office. (in my opinion - I am not a lawyer)
So what?
I'm not defending Trump, but convicting him, solely because of how others interpreted his messages is extremely dodgy.
Here, again, it's up to judges to decide whether these tweets show intent to send these messages. Could Trump reasonably expect that these tweets would be received as an "order" to storm the Capitol?
Well, if it wasn't his intent, he sure did sit watching it on TV until it was clear that the US government would not be overthrown, instead of swiftly taking action like any other president would when congress is under attack
We had to rely on Pence, hiding in the capitol basement, to actually attempt to manage this thing
Again, so what?
Negligent, sure. But that's not the point.
You keep arguing on a moral level, which is entirely besides the point. The question is: is he guilty of insurrection? Not bad presidenting, not shitty behavior.
If the IRS decides, you’re a millionaire now and taxes you accordingly, you can go to court and they will decide whether you’re actually taxable as a millionaire.
Funny enough, no you can't. The courts don't have any say in that.
There's all kinds of government determinations that have no court remedy. Impeachment, for example, is done solely through congress.
Of course they have. If, say, they decide wrongly that the house you sold is worth 50million and not 50k, you can go to court for that.
Impeachment is a bit of a different beast, since it's done by the governing body - essentially they're making it legal on the fly. But even then, I'm pretty sure, if Congress would have decided in 2013 that Obama can't be president because he's black, there would be an option for the supreme court.
I looked into it and you're right! I was under the impression that you only had the option (after exhausting administrative remedies within the IRS) of paying them and then suing them to recover what you consider the excess amount, but the US Tax Court will take cases where the IRS has not been paid yet.
I think a conviction is the only way to get something even some Republicans will have to agree to. The only other methods I can think of would require the Senate and House to vote against him, and I don't think that's going to happen.
That too, but note that it doesn't say "convicted". There is no requirement for conviction.
So I can just accuse somebody and they're barred from running?
A conviction means a process was followed, evidence was weighed, arguments pro and con were considered.
It says Congress could override it with a 2/3rds majority in both houses, so if Team Red wins a landslide next year, they actually could vote to allow him to run regardless, even if he is actually convicted of something.
That's a terrible thought.
Permanently Deleted
We really need to come up with a new system of government, ban the right from participating, and just organize and move on from the broken decaying system they took over.
This is like a kid asking Santa for a pony
The US constitution bans anyone who leads an insurrection against the government from holding public office.
Problem is its not been proven yet
There is a copy of it on YouTube if you'd like a refresher..
I mean yeah he's 100% guilty. The problem is that legally he hasn't yet been proven guilty. It would be difficult to take a legal action (like barring him from running) on the basis of a claim that is not yet proven to a degree that is legally sufficient.
He doesn't have to be found guilty of insurrection at trial for the clause to take effect - the bar is lower than that. All that's necessary is that he be accepted by the court as having been somewhat involved either directly or indirectly.
That's an interesting distinction thanks
A lot of us in the U.S. feel very strongly about what happened on January 6th, 2021, and the role he played in that.
Well both, of course.
What I think is insane is that the question of whether an impeached president can run again hadn't been settled years ago. It's just obvious. It shouldn't be precedent setting. it's something that should have been settled a long time ago.
On what basis? Because he committed a coup isn't good enough?
Innocent until proven guilty still matters though, even when it seems like the justice system moves at a snail's pace. His actions are coming down on him, and I think he'll be behind bars before the election, but until then there's no legal basis to block him from anything
It's (legally) not decided whether he actually did.
He's unfortunately smart enough to not simply say "let's storm congress by force". His messaging was vague enough that a trump-leaning judge could make an argument that he never intended this to happen. And letting things spiral out of control is not enough for an insurrection.
Because a vast swath of Americans, including most Republicans, want him to be able to run no matter what he does.
*attempted
Just read the fucking article. The legal reasoning is pretty clearly explained. You're basically asking people to read it for you.
Dipshit. Because he committed treasonous acts and not only directed but defended those whom would overthrow the US govt. How fucking dense are you? ANYONE who would try to do that shouldn't be president. That SHOULD be the precedent.
Simmer down dude, he's just not ignorant, not evil.
Suck my wing-wang bruh.
Ah, but you're missing an important distinction. He committed treasonous acts with plausible deniability! And he'll always be able to come up with new lies and new ways to abuse you faster than you'll be able to disprove his lies or protect yourself, so you may as well restore the monarchy already and put him on top.
EDIT: On a serious note, the comment you replied to is absolutely correct in the point they were making. If Trump is barred from the Oval Office, and the evidence and the way the evidence are presented are anything less than rock solid, then future presidents will absolutely weaponize it as precedent to lock out their political opponents (as happens in every other broken democracy).