• iByteABit [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    9 months ago

    On the bright side, if the USA split up because of internal tensions it would probably be easier for individual states to turn socialist, and that would have a ripple effect around them each time

    • zifnab25 [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      morshupls

      I think its worth noting that he’s hardly unbeatable. This is far less “Donald wriggling his way out” and far more “institutions just kinda falling on their face and letting him saunter past”. But when states are stripping him from the ballot? IDFK. Unless a higher court puts him back on the ballot again, this sets up a very sharp conflict between the national party leadership (which wants Hailey at the top of the ticket in 2024) and the schlub voters (who are ride-or-die for Trump).

      It looks like some subset of the bureaucracy has found its spine and is actually using real governmental powers to put hurdles in front of President Cheeto that he can’t flounder his way past. American wasn’t much of a democracy before now, so who gives a shit if its even less of a democracy during the next primary season? If a few big states like California and New York and Pennsylvania and Michigan yank him, this sets up a possible contested convention and a bunch of extremely angry delegates.

      • asg101 [none/use name, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        9 months ago

        American wasn’t much of a democracy before now

        America was NEVER a democracy, it was an oligarchy from the very beginning. Only rich, white males had any say according to the constitution. The senate was created to make sure the oligarchs could veto any real challenge to the power structure. Window dressing has changed over the years, but the fundamentals remain.

        i-voted

        • zifnab25 [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          America was NEVER a democracy

          Eh. It had a few moments.

          Window dressing has changed over the years, but the fundamentals remain.

          The fundamental structure of democracy still exists. I believe it is the people who are ultimately too alienated and terrified of one another to properly utilize it.

    • axont [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 months ago

      Yeah if anything what this will do is just briefly annoy capital. We can dream, but I can’t see this causing a genuine national split. Maybe some states like Texas or Florida will threaten, but nothing will happen.

    • spectre [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      The term definitely gets overused, but it is funny when states are perturbed into falling out of step with the federal government like this.

  • SoyViking [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    9 months ago

    Let’s say that this works and Trump is prevented from running. Genocide Joe wins another term. Democracy has prevailed over darkness, norms and civility reigns supreme in the halls of government.

    Then what happens?

    You still have deteriorating material conditions for people as well as blatant militarism and nationalism, creating fertile soil for fascism. You have a regime made up of the alleged “good guys” who are unwilling and incapable of improving life for the masses, a regime that is adding insult to injury by telling people they’re idiots for believing their own lying lived experience over government spreadsheets. And you have a large section of the people who are convinced fascists who have ample reason to believe the election was stolen and that the deep state will never play fair with them. Many of these fascists are in law enforcement and the military.

    This can’t end well.

    • HexBroke [any, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      9 months ago

      And you have a large section of the people who are convinced fascists who have ample reason to believe the election was stolen

      Regardless of the election outcome, taking nominees off ballots is quite clearly anti democratic, and the whole purpose of the US electoral system is to diffuse and redirect tension

    • InevitableSwing [none/use name]@hexbear.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Before I assumed the supreme court will rule for Trump. I think I was entirely wrong. Recently I’ve noted commentators saying it’s likely the court will avoid the hot potato and kick it over to congress. And that seems highly likely to me now.

      I didn’t read any articles on the details about how congress will deal with it. But if the house is involved - all these efforts are already DOA.

      -–

      Ninja edit

      Google is shity and the media is shittier. I scanned a couple articles on the theme of “Everything you need to know about Trump and the 14th Amendment”. And they didn’t answer my simple question: if the court sends it congress - what happens?

      • ZoomeristLeninist [comrade/them, she/her]@hexbear.netM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        it wont go to congress. the highest court in the state made a ruling regarding a state law. for there to be a national disqualification, the justice department will have to file charges and he will be tried in a federal court. congress could spearhead this by investigating, but its up to the executive branch to file charges, and up to the judicial branch to reach a verdict. only if trump is a convicted insurrectionist can congress decide to disqualify him from running

        • InevitableSwing [none/use name]@hexbear.netOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          it wont go to congress.

          The NYT disagrees and says it could.

          archive.today • How the Supreme Court May Rule on Trump’s Presidential Run - The New York Times

          Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. will doubtless seek consensus or, at least, try to avoid a partisan split of the six Republican appointees against the three Democratic ones. He may want to explore the many paths the court could take to keep Mr. Trump on state ballots without addressing whether he had engaged in insurrection or even assuming that he had.

          Among them: The justices could rule that congressional action is needed before courts can intervene, that the constitutional provision at issue does not apply to the presidency or that Mr. Trump’s statements were protected by the First Amendment.

          • ira@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            They’re just saying that the court could rule that the amendment by itself is inactionable until the legislature enacts laws to create a process to disqualify candidates. Similar to how Article III declared a judiciary branch, but it wasn’t actually established until Congress passed the Judiciary Act, describing what kind of courts there would actually be, what their jurisdictions would be, how many justices would comprise the court, etc. etc.

            But in this case, the amendment is clearly prohibiting an action. With a reasonable court, I can’t imagine how they’d just allow somebody to continue violating the Constitution until Congress passed additional legislation to stop it. It’s as ludicrous as saying that the executive branch can unreasonably search and seize anything they’d like until Congress explicitly spells out each and every action that’s unreasonable and provides the exact remedy process to follow when the 4th amendment is violated.

            I mean, it’s a pretty moot point because the court has already shown that they’re perfectly willing to create whatever calvinball rules they want. But of course good old liberal media has to get in there and grant an air of credibility to whatever flimsy justification they come up with that’s even the slightest bit plausible sounding.

            If the court wants to come out and say that they judge the President isn’t an officer of the United States or that he wasn’t personally engaged in an insurrection, then that’s one thing. But kicking it over to Congress to legislate exactly what’s prohibited by the Constitution and/or what the remedies are is just opening up a huge can of worms.

            • HexBroke [any, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              They’re just saying that the court could rule that the amendment by itself is inactionable until the legislature enacts laws to create a process to disqualify candidates.

              I agree this isn’t a likely outcome because there is already a federal offence for rebellion or insurrection

          • ZoomeristLeninist [comrade/them, she/her]@hexbear.netM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            “congressional action is needed before courts can intervene” meaning that congress needs to investigate for insurrection in order to charge him for the crime. it would still eventually come back to the courts to decide on a verdict.

            edit: my wording of “it wont go to congress” was clumsy. i meant that congress wont be the ultimate body making that decision. congress can decide to not disqualify even if hes found guilty, but thats if both houses pass a 2/3 vote

  • InevitableSwing [none/use name]@hexbear.netOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    9 months ago

    r/politics thread

    Man - libs are in Fantasyland in this thread. r/politics thread subthreads…

    -–

    “1866 Colloquy on Phrasing of the 14th Amendment” - hahhhaahaha.

    mochicrunch_ comments on Louisiana woman files suit to remove Trump from Louisiana ballot

    Regardless, if this is being filed in Louisiana, and we are already writing out that it’s not gonna happen, the fact that it’s starting to have a domino effect that lawsuits are happening across the country because of this tells you that the Supreme Court is going to have to get involved and they’re gonna have to ultimately decide before the election.

    A question that has never been answered - either Trump is disqualified nationally, they allow states to individually determine that for themselves, they try and set a definition for what insurrection means, or they say Congress has to make the determination because they don’t want to touch this with a 10 foot pole.

    I’d argue it was answered in 1866.

    1866 Colloquy on Phrasing of the 14th Amendment

    Senator Reverdy Johnson worried that the final version of Section Three did not include the office of the Presidency.

    He stated, “[T]his amendment does not go far enough” because past rebels “may be elected President or Vice President of the United States.”

    So he asked, “why do you omit to exclude them? I do not understand them to be excluded from the privilege of holding the two highest offices in the gift of the nation.”

    Senator Lot Merrill fielded this objection. He replied, “Let me call the Senator’s attention to the words ‘or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States.’”

    This answer satisfied Senator Johnson, who stated, “Perhaps I am wrong to the exclusion from the Presidency; no doubt I am.”

    https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=20

    -–

    Louisiana woman files suit to remove Trump from Louisiana ballot : politics

    Removed in Colorado and Maine. Looking to be removed in Vermont, New York and now Louisiana. If he’s actually removed Trump will have lost in 10% of States before the first ballot is even cast.

    -–

    Faux-Foe comments on Louisiana woman files suit to remove Trump from Louisiana ballot

    Can anyone else get in on this action? I live in Missouri.

    PA here. That’d be awesome.

    -–

    It starts with you.

    -–

    Me too. I’d like to know.

    -–

    Would be nice if this starts happening in red states.

    Alaska is considering.

    • ZoomeristLeninist [comrade/them, she/her]@hexbear.netM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      9 months ago

      “Alaska is considering” i just talked with Alaska and they are totally gonna remove trump from the ballot. this is hilarious bc libs are gonna throw even more of a fit if trump wins and if trump doesnt win fascists are gonna be even more violent than jan 6. wait, that’s not hilarious. at least i can look forward to telling the libs in my life im not voting in next years election. ill vote for biden if we get $15 federal minimum wage, universal healthcare, and student loan forgiveness

    • HexBroke [any, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      If it didn’t include the presidency that would suggest that one could be remain in Congress while being appointed president

      No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

      Also I believe the entirely cooked constitution already allows for, e.g. the Chief Justice to be appointed president (subject to some shenanigans around salaries) so why not

  • Utter_Karate [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    9 months ago

    I always knew I was going to be a witness to the decline of the US empire. Over the past decade or so the US has seemingly done everything in its power to convince me that the word I’m looking for is “collapse”.