this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023
690 points (97.9% liked)

politics

18866 readers
21 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 36 points 9 months ago (5 children)

They could rule that it's a state law issue and not a federal decision.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Then I could guarantee at least one red state will take Biden off the ballot for a completely made up reason. They're already trying to impeach Biden for... being a dad I suppose, so they don't need to be imaginative in disqualifying Biden (which is convenient because they have no imagination).

[–] [email protected] 20 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Trump waa found to have incited insurrection by a court of law.

If they wanted to properly remove Biden they'd have to at least somehow get a judge and the state supreme court to agree.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago

Yes. They're suggesting they will do that.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Some officials in Texas are already talking about taking Biden off the ballot.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

There are some politicians in Texas who deny the Holocaust. It is a pretty low bar down there.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Yes, but those states are probably voting red anyway.

This is about the primaries. If enough states bar Trump from the primaries he won't become the Republican nominee and would have to run as an independent.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

The fact of his eligibility for the Office of President is a Federal matter. Whether he goes on the ballots is a State matter. I have to admit, in all my readings of the text of the Constitution and the context around the drafting of the Amendments, never once have I seen anything banning a State from putting someone who can't be President on their ballot.

Maybe the Framers thought there was no way a State government would be so stupid as to put an ineligible candidate on their ballots, but that if they wanted to waste their votes on that then they should be so allowed, God bless 'em.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

This seems right to me. If he was a participant in an insurrection, he can't hold the office of President. He can still be on ballots, he can still get votes in the electoral college, heck, he can still win, he just can't be President. In my mind, it would kick over to his VP, same as if he died or otherwise became ineligible while in office.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yes if the Supreme Court agrees with the Colorado Supreme Court than it would make him invalid to run for any office including Presidency across all 50 states. This can’t be challenged be states if that’s the case. But I suspect a 25% likelihood of that happening.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I think the likelihood is actually higher than some would suspect. The justices don’t owe him anything at this point. He made a big blunder, in that he put them in office and then expected them to protect him. At best, he has nothing more to offer them, but can do a lot to drag them down in the future if he’s back in office. So even the conservative justices have very little incentive to favor him. From a pragmatic standpoint, it actually makes a lot of sense for the conservative justices to stonewall, or outright refuse to let him hold office.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

True I guess it’s just a constitutional question. The right doesn’t get that you don’t need to be convicted of insurrection in order to be ineligible for any Goverment position in section 3 of the 14th Amendment. If Trump did the same thing as a civilian if he lost to Hilary in 2016 the same principle would apply.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

And if they vote other way around they kinda open the doors for national popular vote don't they? Since theyd be saying that federal government has authority over the election process of individual states

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Ultimately they have to decide if he can hold an office, I'd argue this supercede any technicality about the election itself. At worst I guess this could be decided after he won, but this would break the country.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Are we nearing the average timeframe for a fallen empire already?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Pretty sure you passed it long ago. That's one way in which the US actually IS exceptional: it's managed to make itself the nation equivalent of "too big to fail".

No matter how bad it gets, most of the world will continue to automatically side with the US bo matter what. Even if Trump wins and does everything we fear he might do and more, most of the world HAS to side with the US or face financial ruin.

Hell, Trump could form an official alliance with Putin's Russia and start WW3 and The West would join on the side of fascism.