this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2023

357 points (95.9% liked)

News

31245 readers

4346 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

rjc@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

jeffw@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

357

Is Trump disqualified for the N.H. primary? The secretary of state is seeking legal advice (www.bostonglobe.com)

submitted 2 years ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

81 comments fedilink hide all child comments

“I will be asking the attorney general’s office for their input,” Secretary of State David Scanlan told the Globe. “And ultimately whatever is decided is probably going to require some judicial input.”

A debate among constitutional scholars over former president Donald Trump’s eligibility for the 2024 presidential race has reverberated through the public consciousness in recent weeks and reached the ears of New Hampshire’s top election official.

Secretary of State David Scanlan, who will oversee the first-in-the-nation presidential primary in just five months, said he’s received several letters lately that urge him to take action based on a legal theory that claims the Constitution empowers him to block Trump from the ballot.

Scanlan, a Republican, said he’s listening and will seek legal advice to ensure that his team thoroughly understands the arguments at play.

(page 2) 35 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

14th Amendment to the US Constitution, Section 3:

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.

This does not require judicial input. The language is clear. Trump is, along with many co-defendants, disqualified from holding any civil or military office.

[–] DigitalFrank@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This is an easy one for anyone capable of critical thinking and knows "innocent until proven guilty".

He hasn't been convicted of anything, only accused.

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

14A S3 does not require a conviction.

[–] DigitalFrank@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Bullshit. Otherwise you could just accuse your political rivals of crimes to prevent them from running.

You need to go back to internet lawyer school.

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Can you show me which part of the 14th amendment, section three, requires a conviction of any kind?

Disqualification from office is not a criminal punishment.

Edit: Protip: The full text of 14A S3 is posted at the very beginning of this thread.

[–] DigitalFrank@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Can you show me in any part of the constitution where it says any civil punishment or penalty requires a conviction? Can a right wing DA accuse Hillary of the same crimes and remove her eligibility to office?

Not without a conviction.

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

District attorneys are probably not the people at the state level who determine ballot eligibility. Secretary of State would be likely, there are other election officials who could enforce constitutional law in this context.

People who are under 35 years of age are also disqualified from holding the office of President of the United States. Nobody needs to be "convicted" of being under the age of 35. If someone under the age of 35 meets all other prerequisites to run for president, they should not be allowed on the ballot, because it says so in the Constitution. No court case is required, no conviction is required, no accusation of any crime is required.

The same applies to people "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."

Excellent work ignoring my question and retorting with a question that doesn't even make any sense. In case you happened to miss it:

Can you show me which part of the 14th amendment, section three, requires a conviction of any kind?

Edit: Oh wait, I think I see what you're asking now. Are you asserting that disqualification is a civil penalty? It's not. It's not a penalty. There is no "right" to aspiring to or holding office.

[–] DigitalFrank@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Tha constitution is the basis of law, not law itself. Someone too young to run for president would obviously be unconstitutional, so there is no need to make a law specifically for that. But what you don't apparently understand is that Trump hasn't committed any of the things he has been accused of until he is convicted in a court. Regardless of the fevered dreams of the media and the far left, he is innocent of the charges so far. You could be on video robbing a bank, 20 eyewitness to the crime, cash in your possession when arrested, and you aren't guilty until 12 people on a jury say you are. He can't be disqualified yet.

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Tha constitution is the basis of law, not law itself.

There are some things which are "Constitutional law."

But what you don’t apparently understand is that Trump hasn’t committed any of the things he has been accused of until he is convicted in a court. Regardless of the fevered dreams of the media and the far left, he is innocent of the charges so far.

Having acted in a specifically defined way and being convicted of a crime are two different things.

You could be on video robbing a bank, 20 eyewitness to the crime, cash in your possession when arrested, and you aren’t guilty until 12 people on a jury say you are.

This is the only true thing in your comment.

He can’t be disqualified yet.

Yes he can, because it's not about being accused of a crime and being either convicted or acquitted. It's about having participated in a specifically defined behavior, and being disqualified from office because of it. As I have previously explained, people do not have a "right" to asipre to run for or hold office. Certain people are disqualified from holding the office of President by the Constitution, for reasons which are unrelated to criminality.

Trump may also be criminally convicted of actions related to "participating in isurrection or rebellion against the [United States], or giving aid or comfort to the enemies thereof," but that's a completely separate issue.

And since you mentioned "the fevered dreams of the media and the far left," I'll remind you that three of the four legal experts I cited above are super right wing.

I'll ask a third time:

Can you show me which part of the 14th amendment, section three, requires a conviction of any kind?

[–] DigitalFrank@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Can you show me any enforcement mechanism in 14A Sec 3 of the constitution?

The Arizona Supreme Court disagrees with you (Though the Sec of State disagrees). https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4179561-trump-cant-be-barred-from-arizonas-2024-ballot-says-democratic-secretary-of-state/

Other Blue leaning states may agree with your reasoning, but Trump wasn't going to win those anyway.

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

It is self-executing. It has the same enforcement mechanism as the part in Article II which states that only people who are over the age of 35 can hold the office of President.

And it's not "Blue state" reasoning. The reason this all came up was because of the paper The Sweep and Force of Section Three, written by two Federalist Society (way way way conservative) guys. It's long, but it's in relatively clear language.

Let's see how you decide to dodge ask number four:

Can you show me which part of the 14th amendment, section three, requires a conviction of any kind?

[–] DigitalFrank@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago

It is self-executing

That's a hilarious legal argument. This will likely end up in front of Scotus.

I think I'll go with what at least one state Supreme Court has decided over some rando on the internet.

[–] DigitalFrank@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

I guess SCOTUS can actually read section 3 of the 14th amendment.

9-0.

[–] Kinglink@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (6 children)

Trump is, along with many co-defendants, disqualified from holding any civil or military office.

Want to prove that? Last I checked he's not been found guilty of any crime?

Would you support this if it was Biden or Hillary in the same legal situation? How about we respect the judicial proceeding and stop trying to jump the gun, before it's made into a political maneuver?

[–] mustardman@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Trump was literally dancing during the insurrection and there is a video of it. Dude was gleefully happy about one of the darkest days in American history.

It's not jumping the gun, you just have your head in the sand.

[–] Kinglink@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It is. I'm sorry your opinion of this shit doesn't matter. Legally he's allowed to run for president, the minute he's not he should be stripped of it. It's not your decision it's the courts.

[–] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

It’s not a court’s decision, it’s a matter for the official deciding who is eligible to be on the ballot, following the constitution. Of course it can be challenged in court, like just about everything else.

[–] Kinglink@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago

Just remember that when a Democrat gets removed because some official decided who was eligible...

You clearly don't see the red flag or the future problem, but I'll keep repeating it in the hope some piece of it will get through to one of you.

[–] Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The amendment does not require formal conviction of a crime, and after the Civil War it was used extensively without formal convictions.

And obviously we’d support that if Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden tried to stage a coup. Would sort of insane bozo would still support a candidate after that?

[–] DarthBueller@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago

The sort of insane bozo that is every member of the GOP. If the Dems ever try to regain power in my state, I am going to loudly demand ranked-choice voting and non-partisan redistricting as state constitutional amendments. I care more about the possibility of a representative government than I do about permanently cementing my party's dominance forever.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] electrogamerman@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Im not American, but whats the point of disqualifying Trump? There are 3 others worse candidates always.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments