The Constitution itself would suggest he’s already barred from running. I am just hoping someone takes this up and actually challenges it in the courts well ahead of time. Disqualification comes the moment you’re even brought to trial on sedition charges. This was incorporated language following the Civil War as there otherwise would have been too many people to disqualify individually through the litigation process ahead of future elections.
The corrupt supreme court has literally ruled that part of the text of the second amendment is the absolute unchallengable law of the land and another part just doesn’t count. They don’t just pick the cherries, they pit them as well.
I am just hoping someone takes this up and actually challenges it in the courts well ahead of time.
I personally know someone working to file suit against the state AG to bar trump from the ballot in their state, so there are things going on. Whether they’re successful or not is anyone’s guess.
My guess is “no, they won’t be.” The 14th may in fact bar someone from holding office, however, it’s my personal belief the 5th and the 14th both require them to be convicted of said offenses to first trigger the bar
The 14th may in fact bar someone from holding office, however, it’s my personal belief the 5th and the 14th both require them to be convicted of said offenses to first trigger the bar.
When the 14th amendment was passed, it was interpreted quite broadly to mean anyone who was involved in the Confederacy, in any capacity. It had nothing to do with any conviction. And in 1872, Congress passed an “amnesty act” limiting the restrictions to politicians and military officers, implying that even grunts in the Confederate army were deemed disqualified until the act passed.
The 14th also contains the due process clause which would seem to require some form of court process before precluding anyone from participating in their right to seek office.
There was an editor for a major newspaper, but I can’t remember exactly which one, that was on Preet’s podcast. I think it was the NY Times and Preet asked if he’d rather have Trump and the drama attached or trump no longer ever allowed to be president, he picked Trump and the drama because it sells newspapers. It was a sheepishly done answer because he was not a fan of trump Their job is to sell newspapers.
I am rather with you on that. Barring him prior to any court proceedings sets a bad precedent. It would also rile up his supporters and they would have some legitimacy in their arguments.
Ugh. If the Senate had followed through with the impeachment he’d have been barred already. My dad’s a hardcore Republican and agrees the fucker is dangerous to democracy. I’m more worried at this point that his trials will align with the election and he’ll stir up another more deadly riot.
I would not be surprised to learn that several Democrats in power did not want to convict him because they expected him to turn the Republican primary into a shitshow and they benefit personally from the chaos.
To be certain. I lean right for most policy. But not a single issue voter. Trump is a total shit show. Been banned from conservative groups because I will mention that. But both sides don’t want the opposition to have good leadership. They do their best to take down any good leaders.
Given that a conviction does not stop this person from running as a candidate for POTUS. I wish the media would stop giving this guy air time.
It’s all he wants. He didn’t show up to the GOP debate yet somehow still got equal mentions in mainstream media.
Even local news channels airing his prerecorded shit. Like bro, I want the traffic and weather updates. Not this bs
The Constitution itself would suggest he’s already barred from running. I am just hoping someone takes this up and actually challenges it in the courts well ahead of time. Disqualification comes the moment you’re even brought to trial on sedition charges. This was incorporated language following the Civil War as there otherwise would have been too many people to disqualify individually through the litigation process ahead of future elections.
This article does a good job explaining this provision within the 14th Amendment: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/trump-jan-6-insurrection-conservatives.html
They cherry-pick the Constitution more than the Bible. That doesn’t mean anything to them.
The corrupt supreme court has literally ruled that part of the text of the second amendment is the absolute unchallengable law of the land and another part just doesn’t count. They don’t just pick the cherries, they pit them as well.
I personally know someone working to file suit against the state AG to bar trump from the ballot in their state, so there are things going on. Whether they’re successful or not is anyone’s guess.
My guess is “no, they won’t be.” The 14th may in fact bar someone from holding office, however, it’s my personal belief the 5th and the 14th both require them to be convicted of said offenses to first trigger the bar
When the 14th amendment was passed, it was interpreted quite broadly to mean anyone who was involved in the Confederacy, in any capacity. It had nothing to do with any conviction. And in 1872, Congress passed an “amnesty act” limiting the restrictions to politicians and military officers, implying that even grunts in the Confederate army were deemed disqualified until the act passed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnesty_Act
The 14th also contains the due process clause which would seem to require some form of court process before precluding anyone from participating in their right to seek office.
Not that I like it at the moment, but it’s there
There was an editor for a major newspaper, but I can’t remember exactly which one, that was on Preet’s podcast. I think it was the NY Times and Preet asked if he’d rather have Trump and the drama attached or trump no longer ever allowed to be president, he picked Trump and the drama because it sells newspapers. It was a sheepishly done answer because he was not a fan of trump Their job is to sell newspapers.
I am rather with you on that. Barring him prior to any court proceedings sets a bad precedent. It would also rile up his supporters and they would have some legitimacy in their arguments.
Ugh. If the Senate had followed through with the impeachment he’d have been barred already. My dad’s a hardcore Republican and agrees the fucker is dangerous to democracy. I’m more worried at this point that his trials will align with the election and he’ll stir up another more deadly riot.
I would not be surprised to learn that several Democrats in power did not want to convict him because they expected him to turn the Republican primary into a shitshow and they benefit personally from the chaos.
To be certain. I lean right for most policy. But not a single issue voter. Trump is a total shit show. Been banned from conservative groups because I will mention that. But both sides don’t want the opposition to have good leadership. They do their best to take down any good leaders.
He should be. The other republicans are afraid.