I agree it’s probably true, but he hasn’t been convinced of insurrection (yet), has he? The sixth amendment to the Constitution guarantees a fair trial, no?
So the sitting government decided their opponent is guilty of “The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government”, and then told you and everyone else you’re not allowed to vote for him. Could that not be applied to all opposition?
That’s not concerning? What if it’s switched next time?
The government also says I can’t vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger for president, because he’s constitutionally ineligible for that office. The reasons someone can be ineligible for the presidency seem to be fair, and accurately enforcing them isn’t a slippery slope.
The 14th amendment section 3 lays out that someone who takes an oath of office and then engages in insurrection is ineligible to hold office unless Congress removes that ineligibility, and this seems to be what Trump has done.
If anything, if he’s truly ineligible, not removing him from ballots is the thing that should be concerning. Maybe SCOTUS will deem him actually eligible, but not starting that process seems to be the wrong thing to do if you believe he’s actually ineligible.
I personally don’t believe Donald Trump should be the next president.
However, is anybody concerned that the existing government is telling you who you cannot vote for?
This seems like it could lead to problems down the road.
Nah. Because the constitution says a traitorous insurrectionist doesn’t belong in government. I agree with the constitution 100%
I agree it’s probably true, but he hasn’t been convinced of insurrection (yet), has he? The sixth amendment to the Constitution guarantees a fair trial, no?
So the sitting government decided their opponent is guilty of “The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government”, and then told you and everyone else you’re not allowed to vote for him. Could that not be applied to all opposition?
That’s not concerning? What if it’s switched next time?
The 14th does NOT say ANYWHERE that the traitor has to be convicted.
We all saw it live, the desecration of the very core of American values. We the people do not accept traitors in our government.
I know you think you’re slick “arguing” in bad faith. We see right through your sad tricks.
Also, lemme know next time a democratic politician tries to overthrow democracy. I’ll apply the same rules to them instantly.
The government also says I can’t vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger for president, because he’s constitutionally ineligible for that office. The reasons someone can be ineligible for the presidency seem to be fair, and accurately enforcing them isn’t a slippery slope.
The 14th amendment section 3 lays out that someone who takes an oath of office and then engages in insurrection is ineligible to hold office unless Congress removes that ineligibility, and this seems to be what Trump has done.
If anything, if he’s truly ineligible, not removing him from ballots is the thing that should be concerning. Maybe SCOTUS will deem him actually eligible, but not starting that process seems to be the wrong thing to do if you believe he’s actually ineligible.
Hmm. Dictatorship if he wins, Democracy with a shitty slippery slope argument if he loses.
Yep. Shitty slippery slope argument. Fucking check.
It’s not really a shitty slippery slope. How would you feel when it would’ve been the democrat candidate that was removed from ballots?
If that theoretical candidate had done what Trump did then I’d e perfectly happy with their removal.
Removed by mod
What if they removed Biden in this election?
Removed by mod
On what grounds? Has he violated the Constitution in any way?