In effect, Mr. Trump’s candidacy is becoming a referendum on what kind of justice system the country believes it has now and wants to have in the future
In effect, Mr. Trump’s candidacy is becoming a referendum on what kind of justice system the country believes it has now and wants to have in the future
Sorry, not American. Can an indicted person that have been plead guilty run for office there? It makes no sense to me.
Yes. Otherwise, a bad guy like Trump could push to have his political enemies convicted of random stuff just to put them in prison and keep them from running against him. Like Putin and Navalny, for example.
Of course the author of the law assumed that Americans would never be stupid enough to put an obvious, convicted felon and fraud into the presidency, but here we are.
This is why prisoners and felons need to be able to vote also. It wouldn’t be all that difficult for Republicans to slap enough people in swing states with Felonies to change the election. We are talking about only thousands of votes in some instances.
Our politics have always had a built-in distrust of authority, ever since we cosplayed as natives to protest taxes by throwing tea into Boston Harbor. We tell ourselves that power comes from the people, and have instituted all sorts of checks on political power, with different branches and levels of government monitoring each other, to ensure that no one is deproved of their voice unjustly. This is why we consider everyone innocent until proven guilty, and we say that even a guilty conviction shouldn’t prevent someone from running for office, because power ultimately comes from the people, not what the courts say.
The problem comes when:
So now we still think power comes from the people, but the people are outsourcing their beliefs to their devices, which are being filled with crap by algorithms who are convincing us to trust the wrong people.
(And it’s not just a Smartphone thing: this goes back to Rush Limbaugh on AM Radio, and ultimately back to Roger Ailes, who thought that Nixon’s real problem was that he didn’t have his own news network who could attack his opposition and tell people what to think
AFAIK the reason it is allowed is to keep a corrupt government from charging and convicting all of their political rivals, leaving only their allies as eligible candidates. The idea was to let the people choose their leaders even when under a corrupt federal government.
That made sense before rich people and foreign interests figured out how to use the same tools to get people to part with their money, to also vote against their self interest.
Democracy cannot prevail when people are so easily dupped by ads, fake news, unregulated influencers, and social media algorithms. Democracy assumes people are critical thinkers with the time, energy, and knowledge to filter information.
He pleaded not guilty and was convicted of falsifying business records.
The only law in the Constitution preventing the holding of office for being a criminal is tied to insurrection and rebellion, of which he is not charged with inciting or assisting.
Which he also did, btw.
Yes, but he isn’t charged with incitement, assistance, or participation in a rebellion or insurrection. I honestly don’t know why.
For the record, he doesn’t have to be charged.
It’s enforced by a vote in congress as to if he’s eligible or not. Being that the one time this happened outside of participation in the civil war, it was a guy in congress, his chamber voted- but I assume it would take both houses to oust a president
Technically, yes, but without conviction it’s very easy for SCOTUS to overturn.
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about#:~:text=Since Article VI of the,the Constitution could not stand.
I’m not sure how it would be contrary to the 14.3 and 14.5 amendments, but sure.
And oh, by the way, that would be gross partisanship and qualify scrotus for impeachment, as 14.5 assigned sole enforcement to congress.
It could be, but SCOTUS impeachment is exceedingly rare. The last attempt was Samuel Chase in 1805. He continued to serve until his death.
It also wouldn’t happen before November.
If the process that happened with whats-his-name-from-Wisconsin is followed, then they’d have to wait until after he’s elected but before he’s seated anyhow.
Further, Congress has the constitutional power to override SCOTUS decisions. It’s happened five times. I don’t know if SCOTUS has ever overturned a congressional action that was taken under the direct authority of the constitution.
if you’re going to use ‘this is incredibly unprecedented’… yes. it fucking is. It’s incredibly unprecedented that a sitting US president used riots and insurrection to attempt to overturn the will of the people. such a blatant and unprecedented violation of democracy requires unprecedented responses. (like locking up an ex pres for insurrection.)
It makes no sense to us either, but yes, nothing stops a felon from becoming president