Surprise!!

  • Doubletwist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    The main shortcoming of that is that it’s easily definable and determinable that someone is under 35yrs old, or hasn’t lived in the US for 14yrs.

    But the definition of participation in insurrection is a little more loosy-goosy, and then you have to be (legally speaking) explicit in what constitutes proof that a potential candidate has participated in such an insurrection. Otherwise it will devolve into anyone accusing the candidates they don’t like of having participated in attempted insurrection.

    To be clear, I’m not advocating that Trump should be allowed on the ballot or to be president, because he absolutely shouldn’t. I’m just pointing out that it’s not as simple as saying a candidate is younger than 35.

    • Billiam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      Yes, you’re absolutely correct.

      But Colorado already decided that. The court found, as a matter of fact and using previous judicial case law, that Trump does meet all of the requirements necessary for disqualification under the 14th. It’s not just a single person choosing to keep Trump off the ballot.

      Besides that, we literally have

      • video of Trump telling his mob that they have to fight like hell.
      • video of Trump telling them they’re gonna lose their country.
      • video of Trump telling them to go to the Capitol.
      • sworn testimony that he tried to go too while the riot was already happening and was only stopped because the Secret Service refused to take him.
      • knowledge of what his supporters did after they heard him speak (read: what they believed he was telling them to do.)