this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2024
89 points (97.8% liked)

politics

19360 readers
2084 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter
aidan
jordanlund
HLMenckenFan
little_cow
89
Maine judge delays decision on removing Trump from ballot until Supreme Court rules in Colorado case (www.msn.com)
submitted 1 year ago by Theprogressivist to c/politics
7 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is turning out to be a game of hot potato where no one wants to be the one who is deemed responsible for keeping Trump off the ballot. Reading the 14th Amendment, it's clear as day that he is no longer eligible to become president, seeing how he led an insurrection and all.

But everyone who is in a position of authority to do something about it (save for the 5 justices on the Colorado Supreme Court) is too scared to step up. Instead, they keep passing the potato along, hoping that someone else will do something about it.

I hate to say it, but I'm sure the Supreme Court is going to pass the potato as well. They'll say "the enforcement mechanism of the 14th Amendment isn't clear, so it's up to Congress to determine if someone is in violation and must be kept off the ballot." That final pass of the potato back to Congress will be what kills the whole issue.

I'd love to be wrong.

[–] FuglyDuck 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’d love to be wrong.

We need republicans to loose the house and senate in november. Get control. that I'm aware of, the Victor Berger was the only guy, until recently who was barred by the 14th outside of being a civil war leader. He was a German-American senator that opposed entering WW1, even after the 1917 espionage act. He ran for office, won, then was convicted just before getting off to office.

they created a special committee and had a full vote in the senate. Granted, Berger was a senator, and not POTUS, so it might require both houses.

If we can take the house back and maintain control of the senate... there's a chance.

otherwise, we're probably fucked.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Interesting. I'd never heard of Victor Berger before. So he won a seat for Congress, but the House refused to seat him, citing the 14th Amendment. That doesn't really work for the presidency, since there's no one to "seat" the president. I guess John Roberts could refuse to swear a president in, citing the 14th Amendment, but it's not a requirement that the Chief Justice administer the presidential oath .

Probably best to just keep him off the ballot to avoid this mess, but like I said, I'm sure they'll keep kicking the can down the road.

[–] FuglyDuck 0 points 1 year ago

The enforcement clause in section 5 of the 14th says congress gets to do it

[–] spongebue 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They'll say "the enforcement mechanism of the 14th Amendment isn't clear, so it's up to Congress to determine if someone is in violation and must be kept off the ballot."

Which would be such a stupid take, because if someone were deemed ineligible, Congress can override that per the last sentence of section 3

But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Why would Congress be designated the one to make that decision if it's also the one to override it? Especially when 2/3 is a pretty big threshold to make?

I'm not saying you're wrong in predicting the possibility, it would just be a terrible ruling if you're right.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I agree that it would be a terrible ruling. But unfortunately, I'm 99% sure that was the argument made by one of the dissenting judges in the Colorado case. I'm working right now or I'd link it.

Edit: https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf In page 6 of the 2nd dissent (sorry don't know the PDF Page because it's not showing in my mobile)

He says "Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is not self-executing, and that Congress alone is empowered to pass any enabling legislation."

[–] jordanlund 7 points 1 year ago

Oregon is doing the same. No point starting the whole appeals process if another state is going first.