• Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Senate has to convict him to bar him from office

    The Senate has to agree that he should be barred. That hasn’t happened.

    any state does not have the right to control its own ballot.

    A dangerous precedent if fascists get into power. Clear rules are needed.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      The Senate has to agree that he should be barred. That hasn’t happened.

      There is nothing in the 14th Amendment which claims that, which is why Colorado took him off the ballot.

      A dangerous precedent if fascists get into power. Clear rules are needed.

      It has been the precedent since the beginning of the nation. The Secretary of State of each state sets the election rules in that state. That’s why some states have mail-in ballots and some states don’t.

      • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        As a counterpoint, Arizona Supreme Court and the Michigan Court of Appeals, decided that, in the absence of a criminal conviction, removal from the ballot was unnecessary.

        It can also be argued that as primaries are the party choosing who it wants to put forward as a candidate, and parties are private corporations, there is no constitutional relevancy at this stage.

        • jimbo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Colorado has a law that says you can’t be on the ballot (even in a primary) if you’re not “qualified” for the office, thus the Constitutional question is relevant in Colorado.

          • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            The problem is who decides on the (dis)qualification. In this case one federal judge disagreed with the conclusions of judges in two other states and the majority of the House of Representatives.