charonn0

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

The 14th amendment doesn't require impeachment or criminal conviction, though. It's a completely different disqualification provision from impeachment.

For example, members of Congress cannot be impeached, but they can be disqualified under the 14th amendment. It makes no sense to roll impeachment and the 14th amendment into the same category of disqualification.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago (2 children)

The only thing Congress can do is remove Trump's disqualification under the 14th amendment. They can't decide whether he's disqualified in the first place.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago (4 children)

"High crimes and misdemeanors" is a term of art that refers to acts committed by a public official which, while not necessarily a crime in themselves, are a violation of public trust.

For example, a president that accepted a foreign title of nobility without Congressional consent would have committed a high crime, but they couldn't be hauled into a criminal court for it.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago

This will be challenged in court and almost certainly be struck down on 1st amendment grounds. Targeting a specific organization like that is a pretty flagrant violation, but I wouldn't expect the supporters of this bill to be familiar with the US Constitution.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 8 months ago (6 children)

Being convicted of a crime doesn't disqualify anyone; people have run for President from prison. And most of the people who attacked Congress on Jan. 6 would not be disqualified for it even if they are convicted of a crime for it.

Disqualification is not a criminal punishment. It's not a crime to be 34 years old, for example, or to have been born in another country. But those are still disqualifications, and they are and always have been enforced by the states.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 8 months ago (17 children)

Impeachment is expressly not a criminal procedure. It can't result in prison or fines, nor can it can't be pardoned by the President.

[–] [email protected] 48 points 8 months ago (19 children)

On the contrary, Congress is expressly forbidden from deciding whether someone is guilty of a crime.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 8 months ago

That is what is known as "sarcasm". I wasn't sincerely calling for violence against the Supreme Court, but rather drawing attention to their hypocrisy.

[–] [email protected] 51 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Consider the fact that there is more than one grounds for disqualification. For president, there are also age and naturalization disqualifications.

Who do you think has been determining those all these years?

[–] [email protected] 108 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (28 children)

States have always had that power. Whether its age, naturalization, or oath-breaking, it's never been up to the federal government to decide disqualification.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 8 months ago

States have always had control over federal elections and candidate qualifications. That's been fundamental to American federalism since the very beginning.

It's not like oath-breaking is the only disqualifier, and states decide those too.

[–] [email protected] 165 points 8 months ago (106 children)

Time to violently storm the Supreme Court, then. After all, they approve.

view more: ‹ prev next ›