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.

  • Nougat
    link
    fedilink
    111 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
      link
      41 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
        link
        fedilink
        21 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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 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.

        • @TheYear2525
          link
          English
          71 year ago

          The answer has been said in this thread already: conviction rather than allegation.