638
Republican secretary of state threatens to kick Biden off the ballot as Trump payback
(www.nbcnews.com)
this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2024
638 points (96.8% liked)
News
23404 readers
4627 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. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Neat, I didn't know Biden also engaged in insurrection. This guy seems very wise!
You don't, but they are certain of it. It's clearly been an insurrection all these years, since when the democrats colluded with the lizard people to administer the vaccine and steal the elections. It's obvious if you think about it.
[solemn serious face] My god, how did we not see it before.
This is pretty much how I imagined it
He should be wise. 44 years old and his entire career has been political appointments to cosplay as a lawyer.
Insurrection doesn't seem to be very strongly defined.
Maybe simply running against an incumbent president is insurrectionalist.
The current SCOTUS claims to be using the "common meaning of words" as their interpretation mechanism for the Constitution.
Assuming they have any bit of consistency whatsoever, the common meaning of words gives at least prima facie argument against Trump being able to run with zero argument against Biden being able to run.
And lucky us, the current SCOTUS has not really shown loyalty to Trump as a person. Here's hoping that sticks around.
I'm more worried about future legitimate candidates being excluded. I'm not defending Trump in particular.
Unfortunately, Republicans don't need Democrats to invent ways for them to be fascist, they're quite capable of finding opportunities on their own
Let's not make it even easier for them in the future.
It won't. It's a trick we've fallen for. We withhold Justice from the corrupt out of fear they use our justice against us illegitimately. Yet what we miss is that it only works if they have the ammo to do the same without using our justice against us. It's a game to them to wrap their horrors in our good deeds, but they can't actually commit more horrors because we do good.
And if we incorrectly apply false justice then it's likely to come back and bite us in the ass.
The case against Trump must be watertight. The Senate and courts in two states don't believe this is the case.
I agree 100%
I'm arguing elsewhere in this thread that we need to be careful to dot our I's and cross our T's in serving justice, but we're talking about the Bad Faith argument here, and not whether the case against Trump was watertight. It doesn't matter if we have a watertight case against Trump, Republicans will try to use this against us. It doesn't matter if we took this action or not, Republicans will try to do things like this against us anyway.
But to your point (which is a real tangent), there's no reason or precedent to apply a criminal burden of proof to a non-criminal statutory requirement, despite the fact some judges seem to want to. The Criminal burden of proof is extremely high because the consequences of criminal conviction are dramatic and possibly horrific, far worse than someone simply being left off a federal ballot. People have already been criminally convicted of collaborating with Trump to commit crimes. By even some civil burdens of proof, Trump has already been found liable for his role in the insurrection attempt.
If leaving someone of the ballot is made trivial then it will be used by bad people against good people.
It won't be the good guys that make it trivial. The bad guys just get off by using real justice against us.
If Trump makes it into the General Election, whether he wins or loses, we are a fallen state whose Constitution is meaningless. And I GUARANTEE the bad people are already using the hell out of that.
Nah. Hyperbole.
The 14th ammendment may need rework, but that doesn't burn the entire document
Genuinely interested in what these bad people are doing regarding the Constitution. Can you give examples?
You should actually be more worried that violent insurrection becomes the norm.
Historically, if take away someone's democratic option to express themselves then they become more likely to turn to violence.
Actually, the far right are more likely to turn to violence every time they lose, period. That's always been the way of things. You're conflating the Left's values with the Right. The Right do not care about Democracy. Have you never sat through one of those fascist fucks "we're not a Democracy, we're a Republic" defense of minority tyranny? They care about winning at all costs. They're as likely to turn violent is they lose 90/10 as if they lose because their leader was convicted of a felony or taken off a ballot for legitimate reasons.
If fascist win after having Trump removed from the ballot then it makes it even harder to legitimately argue that a particular candidate should stay on a future ballot.
If fascists take over the US, there will never be another legitimate election whether or not we take the correct legal action prior to that point.
But we're talking Beer Hall Putsch leniency on Trump, and all that does is empower the actual fascists to take more extreme action knowing they will never face consequences. People are terrified that if they don't give in to fascists, fascists won't play fair.
Guess what? Fascists already won't play fair.
But when the good guys don't play fair they can become fascists.
Sure. Show me proof the good guys aren't playing fair taking an insurrectionist off the Ballot because the Constitution demands it.
See the conclusions of 2 states and the Senate.
Preponderance of evidence. The first state concluded the opposite. And the court system seems the right place to challenge.
Or are you suggesting all 50 states need to unanimously agree or he gets off? Because that goes to being a higher burden of proof instead of a lower one.
I'm suggesting the Senate decides on impeachment for insurrection and all 50 states abide by that decision.
Why? Congress is only a law enforcement body in exactly one scenario. That's not what congress was made for.
Congress, the Senate and the presidency were made together, each checking and balancing the other.
Of course they are the ones who rule on eligibility.
The 14th Amendment didn't exist when the country was founded. When the 14th Amendment did exist, its authors recognized the real risk of Congress being complicit in treason. In fact, Trump's initial defense is that "President" isn't an officer and that this only involved Congress.
Are you telling me that the authors of the 14th Amendment thought "if the traitors manage to get a majority in congress, then we don't remove them for treason anymore"?
...it sounds like you're following this idealistic and oversimplified view of government. The dissenting judges in the Colorado case brought up a few reasonable arguments, but the ones you're citing aren't them. Nowhere in the Constitution does Congress get the right to prevent a candidate from running for president. In fact, THAT is intentional because Congress is a political body.
Yeah. The clue is in the name.
If traitors become the majority, are they still traitors?
But the Senate did have that opportunity, and didn't reach majority.
Whose democratic options to express themselves is being taken away?
Statistically it is non-white people, so why is it white people who are turning to violence?
MAGA voters.
Because they are MAGA voters?
How are MAGA voters losing the democratic options to express themselves?
? Not being able to vote for their preferred candidate.
Are you aware the Constitution sets out requirements for eligibility for president? Just because your feelings say you really want a particular person, it doesn't mean you have a constitutional right to vote for them. For example, maybe I really want Arnold Schwarzenegger for president. Just because I prefer Arnold that does not mean he can be president.
Trumpers could vote for Trump in 2020 and they still staged a violent insurrection. So your point is both stupid and moot.
Yes. Trump was impeached for incitement of insurrection but acquitted in the Senate. That's the constitutional rules being followed.
Just because your feelings say you really don't want a particular person, it doesn't mean you have a constitutional right to exclude them.
Consider how violent Trumpers could get if they couldn't vote.
Factually incorrect, either you don't know what is going on, or you're lying. The Senate failed to remove him as president, that is all. There is an ongoing criminal case during which Trump was indicted this past year. There has been no acquittal, contrary to your claim.
I agree 100%. I don't want Biden or any of the other GOP candidates either. And yet, none of them have so far staged and supported an insurrection. I only think candidates should be discluded based on law.
I'm logically consistent, which is something you are not capable of understanding.
Well, Trumpers are extremely delusional and very stupid. So, they will get very violent, even though Trumpers have the most to lose and least to gain from an actual Civil War 2.
One massive trumper delusion is that they are the only ones with guns. In reality, leftists, anarchists, anti-fascists, and communists have a ridiculous amount of firepower stored.
The big difference is that Trumpers paint a big target on themselves and their homes, flying Trump flags and wearing trump merch. Trumpers are not ready to fight a war against an enemy they can't find. They're like the Redcoats of the American Revolution, they are big loud and meant to intimidate, they are not ready to fight an actual bloody war of attrition against an enemy they cannot see.
The charges of insurrection were not upheld.
So not yet found guilty.
It is very wrong that unaccountable corporations are gatekeepers of the presidency.
Hard agree. This is my whole argument. Insurrection needs to be strongly defined to avoid future manipulation. We cannot (yet) conclude that Trump was involved in insurrection.
Me too.
Agree with this and all you wrote following.
That's like if you assaulted someone, and then claiming you didn't assault them because you think assault isn't strongly defined.
It's just a very stupid and slimy way of saying you think laws shouldn't apply to you.
No, assault is strongly defined with a large amount of case law to back it up. It is also obvious who committed it.
Violent storming of the Capitol is insurrectionalist and obvious (like assault)
Incitement to insurrection is lacking in case law, and open to interpretation.
I don't know why you think this law is applicable to me personally.
That was not your original statement but it's a lot more correct now, and if we can agree that an obvious insurrection is an insurrection, that's a very good start.
I don't see any honest case to be made that this isn't incitement of insurrection.
Additionally, the 14th Amendment does not require you to prove it was an incitement, it's enough to provide aid or comfort to the insurrectionists. Of which there are numerous examples, including Trump repeatedly offering to pardon the insurrectionists.
Trump also said "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
The phrase "fight like hell" can be used non violently.
Although it sounds like I'm defending Trump, I'm actually attacking future fascist, because...
This can be read in such a way that almost anyone can be struck off the ballot.
I'll give an hyperbolic example. "Instagram star breaks DC window" = followers are insurrectionists. Anyone liking a post is barred from the ballot.
If you shake someone's hand and also punch them, does the handshake cancel out the punch?
You're being slimy and dishonest again. Trump is a politician, he talks out both sides of his mouth. Talking out both sides of your mouth does not cancel out.
You can't tell the difference between double tapping an Instagram post and offering a presidential pardon?
I'm playing devil's advocate.
I can, but maybe a good lawyer can equate them. Is the law well defined enough to tell the difference?
It's interesting that you consider a swampy dishonest lawyer to be a "good" lawyer.
OK, a lawyer with great arguments, low morals and a love for money. Happier?