this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2023
176 points (93.6% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7233 readers
439 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

"“If President Trump committed a heinous act worthy of disqualification, he should be disqualified for the sake of protecting our hallowed democratic system, regardless of whether citizens may wish to vote for him in Colorado,”

top 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday barred Trump from the state’s ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits anyone who swore an oath to support the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection” against it from holding office.

“It is imperative for the political stability of the U.S. to get a definitive judicial resolution of these questions as soon as possible,” Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, wrote shortly after the ruling.

Trump’s lawyers have argued that, technically, the president isn’t an officer “under the United States” — that it’s a legal term of art that refers to government appointees and therefore the provision doesn’t apply to him.

The majority opinion said the Colorado Supreme Court did have jurisdiction to decide the matter, that the presidency was clearly an office in the United States and that Trump’s actions related to the Capitol attack fit the insurrection clause, in part because he urged his supporters during a rally beforehand to fight.

That included a week of testimony from a handful of police and protesters who were at the Jan. 6 attack, two constitutional law professors and experts on a president’s emergency powers and on right-wing political speech..

“If President Trump committed a heinous act worthy of disqualification, he should be disqualified for the sake of protecting our hallowed democratic system, regardless of whether citizens may wish to vote for him in Colorado,” Samour concluded.


The original article contains 1,432 words, the summary contains 239 words. Saved 83%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

Should amend it so that people who write-in a candidate disqualified from the ballot for such reasons should also be disqualified as voters for the next two cycles.

edit: that goes for these buttholes as well

https://lemmy.world/post/9831042

[–] alvvayson 23 points 11 months ago (2 children)

If he's disqualified for the office, those ballots will be void.

You can write in Arnold Schwarzenegger and he could get a majority, but those votes would all be void, since he is not a natural-born citizen.

What's the saying that the Republicans love so much?

The US is not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic.

There is only one way to peacefully change the constitution - and that's through an amendment.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 11 months ago (3 children)

I strongly disagree. Voting should never be illegal or have legal repercussions. Ever. Not only is it protected speech under the first amendment, it's more importantly a critical part of our democratic system.

There should be stiff consequences for running for an office you know you are disqualified from, but casting a vote should never be illegal for legal voters.

[–] AnUnusualRelic 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The US seems to disqualify quite a lot of voters for reasons that don't apply in most other "western" countries though.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That may be true, I'm not sure on the facts surrounding that. If you have specific sources, I'd be interested in seeing them.

[–] AnUnusualRelic 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Well, can jailed people vote in the US?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Fair point, but I think that only applies to felonies (you can generally vote if it's just a misdemeanor), and most states restore voting rights as soon as they're released.

Do other countries allow currently incarcerated people with felonies to vote?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Yea , that is more a 3rd world country way. Most countries do not remove basic rights besides you freedom when jailing them. Can't think of any examples actually.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 11 months ago

Some of them can, yes.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Right, I don't agree that it should be a legal consequence.

I do however think it should be a moral consequence, a judgment visited on those who would cast such a ridiculous vote. The best way I've heard it termed, is that Trump isn't merely unqualified, he's unqualified squared, which is to say, if you think he's fit to be president, then you also aren't qualified.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

With votes being anonymous, I'm not sure who is going to provide any sort of moral consequence here. Those who support him likely mostly watch media that supports him. The government shouldn't have a say in morality, they deal in law.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Noted, we can agree to disagree.

Also noted is that the 14th Amendment is inherently undemocratic by design, preventing anyone from being able to vote in Confederate insurrectionists.

And, as said before, there are already instances in our country where voting illegally gets you jail time, so, like many other rights, it’s not completely unabridged at present time.

What’s amazing to me is that my original comment could be distilled down to “sure would be nice if treasonous voters supporting treasonous, disqualified candidates were also penalized for being treasonous”, with a measure that almost certainly would never happen, and you’re wasting your time arguing over this.

I didn’t even suggest they go to jail or face fines, just temporarily lose voting rights for a period of time to think about what they did.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

my original comment could be distilled down to “sure would be nice if treasonous voters supporting treasonous, disqualified candidates were also penalized for being treasonous”

And I completely disagree with that notion. Voting for a treasonous person isn't treason, it's a wasted vote because a treasonous person is ineligible to hold office.

The only crime you could commit when voting is fraud, meaning you're voting more times than you're allowed to. You should be allowed to cast your vote however you want with no fear or reprisal, and it's on you to make that vote count.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Noted, still don’t care, you’re welcome to your opinion.