Trump’s Vows to Prosecute Rivals Put Rule of Law on the Ballot
www.nytimes.com
Donald Trump’s promise to seek retribution challenges long-established norms. The election could hinge in part on what kind of justice system the country believes it has now and wants 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

  • @disguy_ovahea
    4•7 months ago

    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.

    No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

      • @disguy_ovahea
        5•7 months ago

        Yes, but he isn’t charged with incitement, assistance, or participation in a rebellion or insurrection. I honestly don’t know why.

    • FuglyDuckEnglish
      3•7 months ago

      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

      • @disguy_ovahea
        1•7 months ago

        Technically, yes, but without conviction it’s very easy for SCOTUS to overturn.

        Article VI of the Constitution establishes the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that an Act of Congress that is contrary to the Constitution could not stand.

        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.

        • FuglyDuckEnglish
          2•7 months ago

          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.

          • @disguy_ovahea
            1•7 months ago

            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.

            • FuglyDuckEnglish
              3•7 months ago

              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.)