Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold (D) called former President Trump a “liar,” after he suggested a recent push to use the 14th Amendment to keep him off the ballot in the state was “electio…
holding public office doesn’t, and shouldn’t have the same bar as convicting someone… this isn’t restricting individual freedoms; this is about the leader of the most powerful country on earth
It should be a relatively high bar though. Any law you can use can be used by your opponents. MTG will be trying to use these laws to ban her opponents from office if this works.
Our courts are reluctant to get too involved in political decisions - I don’t expect these challenges to succeed. “Don’t want him in office? Vote against him.”
That’s like saying felons being blocked from voting or owning guns isn’t a penalty, it’s a qualification issue.
If you’re making the argument that it’s a consequence of criminal action, it very much is a penalty. But people don’t face legal consequences without convictions.
As I mentioned elsewhere, the amendment was written the way it was to bar ALL members of the Confederacy from elected office after the Civil War ended. They engaged in insurrection so they were disqualified. They weren’t all brought to trial afterwards and convicted of anything.
holding public office doesn’t, and shouldn’t have the same bar as convicting someone… this isn’t restricting individual freedoms; this is about the leader of the most powerful country on earth
It should be a relatively high bar though. Any law you can use can be used by your opponents. MTG will be trying to use these laws to ban her opponents from office if this works.
Our courts are reluctant to get too involved in political decisions - I don’t expect these challenges to succeed. “Don’t want him in office? Vote against him.”
well GOOD! anyone who rallies a mob to overthrow the democratically elected government should never be allowed to run for office again
this isn’t a “sides” issue… it’s irrelevant which “side” someone’s on
It’s about to become a “sides” issue.
It does though. Impeachment, on it’s own, doesn’t bar someone from office, the conviction in the Senate does. Not convicted? Not barred from office.
If you aren’t convicted then you’re simply accused and all accused have the presumption of innocence.
In Trump’s case, yeah, I don’t LIKE it either. But let’s focus on convicting him first so there’s absolutely zero question on barring him from office.
That is true in terms of penalizing someone criminally, but this wouldn’t be a criminal penalization. This would be a qualification issue.
That’s like saying felons being blocked from voting or owning guns isn’t a penalty, it’s a qualification issue.
If you’re making the argument that it’s a consequence of criminal action, it very much is a penalty. But people don’t face legal consequences without convictions.
As I mentioned elsewhere, the amendment was written the way it was to bar ALL members of the Confederacy from elected office after the Civil War ended. They engaged in insurrection so they were disqualified. They weren’t all brought to trial afterwards and convicted of anything.
Forswearing the states and joining the Confederacy was a provable action though.
You can’t prove Trump engaged in insurrection without a conviction, and, again, “Well, just LOOK at him!” is not a valid legal argument.
He aided and comforted convicted insurrectionists.
The right will question it regardless. So how about we make not handing all of the nukes to that traitorous piece of shit our top priority.