The Supreme Court has the power to say anything against it but 6 of the justices are down bad for it. And at least one of them are being paid specifically NOT to say anything about it
this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2024
77 points (92.3% liked)
No Stupid Questions
35707 readers
3508 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
rules don't matter if no one enforces them. republicans have been consolidating power for decades, partly by never holding their own accountable. dems are always held accountable, but usually for things that either don't matter or are entirely false.
Trump isn't held accountable because his supporters control every institution that can, and they want him to be king of america.
We have laws and legal procedures for due process and we presume innocence until proven guilty.
Bush crimes against humanity didn't prevent him from being eligible to a second term
Because his voters didn't consider the victims human in the first place.
He is over 35, a natural born citizen, and has lived in the US for 14 years. He was impeached, but not convicted. Accused of insurrection, but the wheels of justice turned too slowly.
That's the extent of the legal requirements to be eligible to be President. The theory was that any other social disqualifications would be handled at the ballot box.
That theory is now proven to be incorrect, but fixing it takes a constitutional amendment.
Out of curiosity, can a judge temporarily strip someone from their election/vote right as part/alternative to a sentence ? It's a relatively common sentence for French politicians found guilty of corruptions (Which save the cost of keeping them in prison and limit their ability to re-offend) but no idea whether it's universal or unique
The theory was that any other social disqualifications would be handled at the ballot box.
That theory is now proven to be incorrect, but fixing it takes a constitutional amendment.
That could be a slippery slope too. Imagine a constitutional amendment making someone ineligible because of a "social disqualification" such as sexual orientation.
I think Americans need to realise that Trump won by popular vote- anything to prevent this legally would be undemocratic. You'll need to change social attitudes or maybe put up a better candidate/run a better campaign in opposition.
I think Americans need to realise that Trump won by popular vote
That mean that most USians are appalling people.
As a Latin-American suffering for decades the consequences of US foreign policies, I'm not surprised.
Gonna have to second this. We decided that, despite everything, none of it was a dealbreaker.
It's definitely tough to accept that 72 million Americans made that choice, and even more than that didn't even give enough of a shit to turn up to vote.
It's disappointing and embarrassing.
I mean making someone ineligible to be president for as long as he is under investigation for insurrection, treason or other crimes against the United States sounds pretty straightforward.
He could always wait and get back into it the next cycle if the investigation gets dropped or if he's proven innocent.
It sounds straightforward until it's used as a weapon by the sitting administration to prevent competition at the ballot box.
You know, because every president commits a little light treason here and there! Same as speeding in a car. It's not that big of deal /s
Dude, this isn't really a hypothetical. We've already seen this exact tactic get used in places like Russia. You just bring bullshit charges against whoever opposes you. The veracity of the charges is completely irrelevant.
This idea rejects the idea that we can put any faith in our courts, even if we add extra measures to make them more trustworthy. If this is true, why bother even faking any of this shit? Let's just all begin thinking of ourselves as slaves and our leaders as untouchable gods.
he hasn't been charged/convicted of any of the relevant felonies that would preclude service, and nobody is going to make an issue of it; simply because all three branches of government are now under christofascist control. any lawsuits will go to SCROTUS, where they'll just rubber stamp a decision and cite some bullshit.
also the 14th gives enforcement to congress, which won't do anything either.
The question I have is why are felony convictions not considered a disqualification for president but they disqualify everyone else from literally almost any job? I knew someone who got a conviction and was hired by chik fil a then later told whoops we missed that on your application sorry can't hire you.
So you can't weaponize the courts against your political opponents.
I do not buy this one bit. I accept that it's given as a rationale but the only result of it is leaders being above the law and being held to a lower standard than anyone else.
How does it result in that?
Being eligible to run for president is not a factor in someone being perused for justice.
... did you read the comments above? We're discussing whether or not we should prevent criminals from running for office. When the answer is "no", that allows criminals to get into office. I cannot get a job at Piggly fucking Wiggly if I am a felon.
Yes, I did read the comments.
Aside from perhaps a couple fringe exceptions, there is noting enshrined in law that prevents a felon from getting a job. A company may decide to not hire someone because they are a felon, that is their choosing and not a result of a law.
An individuals eligibility for running for president does not impact whether or not justice, as defined by our laws, is perused against them.
If I’m understanding correctly you think that criminals should not be eligible. It appeared that you were arguing that in our current system folks are able to be above the law because they are eligible to run from president. I was asking how someone’s eligibility causes them to be above the law.
I know things are very emotional now and that totally makes sense and perhaps is leading to the hostility of your comments. With that in mind I feel I have presented what I’ve set out to and will not reply to your further.
enshrined in law
Ah yes, the only thing that matters. Hey guys I can't afford groceries so I'll go back to robbing people -- it's okay though, not enshrined in law! I'll just flash my "felon: I can't get a job anywhere" card at the cops and they'll be on their way!
My obvious point that I clearly stated was that if ordinary citizens cannot even support themselves after being convicted (often wrongly btw), then why do politicians get away with it scot fucking free?
Right? If the democrats wanted trump out they could have killed him.
Presidents have immunity now.
But why? Why are all these people so happy to protect such a despicable human being who will happily throw any of them under the bus and who has, and will again, sell out their country to anyone who says nice stuff to him and gives him money? It's absolutely extraordinary.
And it's not like it's a secret. His corruption is there out in the open for all to see. We all see it, we all know it. And yet here we are.
My mental wellbeing has taken a major hit this last day seeing how so many people would rather burn down our future than vote for a competent black woman.
They have been setting the pieces to this eventuality for 60+ years.
Trump just stumbled onto the very carefully set board, and started messing with it, and exposing the plans in the process. Being the narcissist he is, he is incapable of not using anything he wants, so it forced the Republican establishment's hand. They had to bring him into since the Presidency is necessary to further the plan, and in turn he also became dangerous since he's 100% the type of person to use that information to extort the outcome that helps him. I don't think they really understood how bad an idea that was at the times and now they're stuck.
kompromat, comrade
I don't think it's democratic to ban people with a criminal record from voting or running. If the people want to vote someone like that in, then who's to stop them
It also means that your opponent can't stop you from running by prosecuting you like it happens in countries like Russia.
The fact that Jan 6 wasn't the tipping point still boggles the mind.
Eugene Debs ran for president while in federal prison for sedition, so it's not really unprecedented.
Bobby Sands became a British MP from prison