this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
57 points (100.0% liked)
News
7 readers
5 users here now
Breaking news and current events worldwide.
founded 1 year ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This will be interesting to see play out. My bet is that it's a dead end. Until he is actually convicted of a crime, it's just allegations, nothing more. The concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is still valid, even for the scummiest of people. And really, we want that. The last thing we need is people being prevented from running for office, because they said some bad stuff. It needs to be proven that the bad stuff they said rises to the level of criminality. Then we remove them from the ballot.
Even if he were convicted, the 14th amendment clearly states that it is up to congress to pass laws to enforce the provisions. The SCOTUS would certainly interpret that to mean that it's up to congress to disqualify. And if any lower court did kick him off the ballot, the SCOTUS would grant cert just to undo that.
But i'm not sure all of the things in the 14th amendment are necessarily criminal. I can't see how it's be a crime to give comfort to someone like Enrique Tarrio, but doing so disqualifies anyone who's previously taken an oath to uphold the constitution. How would that be enforced?
I look forward to seeing clarence thomas tie himself up in knots over that.
Aiding and abetting is a legal doctrine related to the guilt of someone who aids or abets (encourages, incites) another person in the commission of a crime (or in another's suicide). It exists in a number of different countries and generally allows a court to pronounce someone guilty for aiding and abetting in a crime even if he or she is not the principal offender. The words aiding, abetting and accessory are closely used but have differences. While aiding means providing support or assistance to someone, abetting means encouraging someone else to commit a crime. Accessory is someone who in fact assists "commission of a crime committed primarily by someone else".
Yeah I understand those terms, but I'm not sure that's exactly what the constitution says. It says "provides comfort to enemies" and that's not exactly the same as aiding. I think ultimately that the states would have to enforce it though because there's no real mechanism for enforcement spelled out in the constitution
Let's not say "just" allegations since there's literally a recording of him explicitly interfering in his own election.