Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia on Sunday said that he believes a strong legal argument can be made to use the 14th Amendment to remove former President Donald Trump from the ballot in 2024, citing Trump’s actions related to the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Shortly after Jan. 6, Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives for inciting an insurrection amid his push to overturn his election loss, with 10 Republicans and all Democrats voting to impeach him.

He denied any wrongdoing, and while seven members of his own party joined Democrats to support his conviction, he was ultimately acquitted by the Senate.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Great, again, what’s to stop a Republican in a red state from indicting someone who was, for example, at a Black Lives Matter protest for insurrection because they want to bar them from office? Because that is the precedent being set if you don’t wait for a verdict.

    • qantravon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is 100% my take as well. Conviction is how the government proves a person did something. Absent that, all you have are allegations, and we really don’t want to open up the possibility of disqualifying people because of unproven allegations of sedition.

      • Wilibus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        What about the “truths” he truthed on his shitty twitter knockoff about needing to terminate the constitution?

        • Pr0phet@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is still just an allegation until these posts have been presented in court and he has been convicted. You really don’t want to set a precedent ignoring presumption of innocent.

    • Nougat@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I seem to recall we’ve been over this before.

      Elections are handled in the states. The people who are responsible, in a given state, to determine whether someone is qualified to hold office are the ones who make that determination - whether the disqualification comes from Article II of the US Constitution (where the criteria for POTUS qualification are described) or from the 14th Amendment to the same US Constitution.

      If someone feels they have been wrongly disqualified - regardless of why they were disqualified - have recourse to seek relief from that condition through state courts (and possibly federal courts, since it’s in the area of constitutional law, but I have other thoughts on that). Or, in the case of 14A S3, for each house of the US Congress to remove that disability each by a two-thirds vote.

      In your example, if someone becomes disqualified from the ballot for being at a BLM protest, based on 14A S3, they would seek relief in one of those ways. And I would bet that they would be immediately successful, because BLM protests were not attempting to subvert the federal government, or interfere with the legal operation of federal government official business.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        If someone feels they have been wrongly disqualified - regardless of why they were disqualified - have recourse to seek relief from that condition through state courts (and possibly federal courts, since it’s in the area of constitutional law, but I have other thoughts on that). Or, in the case of 14A S3, for each house of the US Congress to remove that disability each by a two-thirds vote.

        Good thing conservatives don’t control those or anything…

        • Nougat@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          There is a difference between “following the law” and “achieving the political outcome you desire,” and that difference is kind of what got us where we are in the first place.

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          So what’s your answer then? Just not enforce any laws at all because Republicans might do it in bad faith? They’re gonna act in bad faith no matter what.

    • Soulg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because insurrection has a definition and one meets that definition and the other doesn’t.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      or not even a BLM protest. It could be the most peaceful protest in the world. hell, they’re already retaliating with calls for impeaching biden, and stuff.

      (I’m reminded of some amazon worker protests that showed up to an office building near my work. they did the rant. they did the chant. they had some fun confetti things. When they were done, the swept up and left. gotta respect that, lol.)

    • Dkarma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because a protest is not an insurrection. It has a definition.
      That can be clearly established and ruled in by a judge to set precedent if need be.