• Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    10 months ago

    The idea that we have to let an insurrectionist campaign and win before disqualifying them is far worse. It would instantly lead to massive protests and violence from whichever party had that happen to them. If you want to avoid civil war then denial must happen early if at all.

    • Pips@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      A lot of the Constitution assumes a level of good faith that just no longer exists among Republicans. Anyway, by my read Colorado can still make it a state law and be totally fine since there would be no conflict, they just can’t use the 14th Amendment.

      Ultimately, it’s a stupid decision based on stupid facts, the worst kind. He hasn’t yet been found guilty of insurrection, let alone in that state, so they’re just sort of declaring it’s true via a lesser standard. While it absolutely is true, it’s asinine to use an amendment that otherwise protects fucking criminal due process to then declare in a civil case someone a criminal and disqualify them from office.

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      That may be true, but the problem is that we really needed the federal government to actually bother to inflict consequences on Trump.

      Colorado can’t make the determination of insurrectionest for say North Dakota, and it’s nuts if the eligibility of a president varies state to state. So the federal government has to be responsible for the determination.

      Even putting that aside, only three states even tried to declare him insurrectionist. The three states didn’t have even enough sway to influence the Republican race. Even to the extent they did, Republicans already declared they would caucus to sidestep the primary ballot if Trump were banned. In the general election, those states have been true blue for at least 16 years, no Republican was going to get those electoral votes anyway. It was only ever going to be a symbolic gesture even if it could stand, the federal government would have had to disqualify him in states that actually mattered for any meaningful result.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        And ND is free to keep him on the ballot. If a state is acting egregiously there is a remedy for that in the certification of electors in early January.

        Maybe the actual fix is to make the college of electors real again. We elect not a president but someone we trust to make a decision in that college and possibly become president.

        • jj4211@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Oh my, could you imagine the disaster of the certification of electors genuinely became contentious? Could you imagine what happens if the electors chose whomever they felt like without the general populace knowing in advance? It would end up being supremely corrupt.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Eh, it’s certainly different. Most likely one of the electors would be president and the electors who supported them would take high ranking appointments in the administration.