this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2023

162 points (93.1% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7181 readers

519 users here now

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

162

Donald Trump is at war with the Constitution's insurrection clause—just 2 sentences in an amendment added after the Civil War (fortune.com)

submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

49 comments fedilink hide all child comments

"“If President Trump committed a heinous act worthy of disqualification, he should be disqualified for the sake of protecting our hallowed democratic system, regardless of whether citizens may wish to vote for him in Colorado,”

top 49 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

The Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday barred Trump from the state’s ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits anyone who swore an oath to support the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection” against it from holding office.

“It is imperative for the political stability of the U.S. to get a definitive judicial resolution of these questions as soon as possible,” Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, wrote shortly after the ruling.

Trump’s lawyers have argued that, technically, the president isn’t an officer “under the United States” — that it’s a legal term of art that refers to government appointees and therefore the provision doesn’t apply to him.

The majority opinion said the Colorado Supreme Court did have jurisdiction to decide the matter, that the presidency was clearly an office in the United States and that Trump’s actions related to the Capitol attack fit the insurrection clause, in part because he urged his supporters during a rally beforehand to fight.

That included a week of testimony from a handful of police and protesters who were at the Jan. 6 attack, two constitutional law professors and experts on a president’s emergency powers and on right-wing political speech..

“If President Trump committed a heinous act worthy of disqualification, he should be disqualified for the sake of protecting our hallowed democratic system, regardless of whether citizens may wish to vote for him in Colorado,” Samour concluded.

The original article contains 1,432 words, the summary contains 239 words. Saved 83%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

Should amend it so that people who write-in a candidate disqualified from the ballot for such reasons should also be disqualified as voters for the next two cycles.

edit: that goes for these buttholes as well

https://lemmy.world/post/9831042

[–] [email protected] 22 points 10 months ago (2 children)

If he's disqualified for the office, those ballots will be void.

You can write in Arnold Schwarzenegger and he could get a majority, but those votes would all be void, since he is not a natural-born citizen.

What's the saying that the Republicans love so much?

The US is not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic.

There is only one way to peacefully change the constitution - and that's through an amendment.

[+] [email protected] -7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The naturalization clause of the constitution for presidential eligibility has never been tested, and actually is quite a complex interpretation, so it’s not absolute to say Arnie would be ineligible.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It is absolute. Look at all the nonsense over Obama's birth certificate, it absolutely is a hard requirement.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

it absolutely is a hard requirement.

So how was John McCain not hassled for being born in PCZ and not getting citizenship until he was 11 months?

How was Canadian and famed Zodiac Killer Tedward Cruz able to run in 2016 without issue?

the nonsense over Obama’s birth certificate

was racism.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

not hassled... without issue

But they were. The difference w/ Obama and Cruz was Trump.

Just because it wasn't plastered all over the media (and it kind of was) has nothing to do with whether it was a big issue. They have to get their candidacy approved by numerous bodies, and meeting the minimum requirements (age and citizenship) is absolutely part of that.

The interpretation most use is this:

Among the qualifications to run for president of the United States is the requirement that a candidate must be a “natural born Citizen”. Most legal experts have interpreted that to be anyone who is a citizen at birth and who did not need to undergo a naturalization process to obtain citizenship – a definition under which Cruz would qualify.

In a Harvard Law Review article, two former solicitor generals, Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, wrote: “Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a ‘natural born Citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution.”

If you are born to an American parent, you are legally a US citizen unless you renounce, even if you don't do the paperwork until later. That was true for McCain, Obama, and Cruz, and it'll be true for the next candidate that runs, provided they were born to at least one American parent. That's how the law has been consistently interpreted.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If you are born to an American parent, you are legally a US citizen unless you renounce

Natural born.

McCain wasn't granted citizenship until a 1937 act of congress, and never had to produce a long-form birth certificate nor argue what "natural born" means in court.

The trouble Obama was given was racism, not the application of a "hard and fast" rule.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yes, and natural born has been interpreted as being either born to a US citizen or born on US soil. One of those is sufficient.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

has been interpreted

By whom? Has it been tested?

Where are you getting the "hard and fast" descriptor when 'natural born' is not defined in the statute.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

My second link (the Guardian) makes the claim, and my third link (Harvard Law Review, linked by the Guardian) provides one such piece of evidence to back that claim.

Almost nothing is "hard and fast" in law, especially where politics is involved, but given that we've had three high profile cases in the last 15 years and no serious Supreme Court-level challenge, I'm going to consider the "question" as mere political posturing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Almost nothing is “hard and fast” in law

it absolutely is a hard requirement.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yes, the "natural born citizen" clause in a hard requirement in the Constitution, how that's interpreted does have some room for debate. It seems you're intentionally misunderstanding what I'm saying...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It seems you’re intentionally misunderstanding

It seems you're saying diametrically contradictory things.

You say things are absolutely hard and when soft edges are pointed out you then say "nothing is hard".

[–] sugar_in_your_tea 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I was talking about two distinct things, yet you conflate them.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's the same thing:

if "natural born" is a hard requirement despite never being defined or tested.

You said it was a hard requirement, I pointed to evidence of the rules being murky unclear and in many ways arbitrary to which you responded that nothing was hard.

On having that contradiction pointed out you now claim to be arguing two to more things.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

To be more clear, here's the relevant text of the Constitution:

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

That is the set of hard and fast requirements to hold the office of President.

The definition of natural born citizen is somewhat debated, but the general consensus is that it includes:

those born on US soil
those who have birthright citizenship, such as through a parent

There are more links there to show the general consensus. But since it hasn't been tried in higher courts, the definition isn't "hard and fast," but the requirement to be a natural born citizen absolutely is. Those are the two different things, the requirement is hard and fast, and the specific definition of the requirement isn't, and probably won't be even if it is tried in higher courts because there's always going to be some exception to whatever definition is provided.

It's like saying murder being against the law is a hard and fast rule, but the specific definition of murder could be subject to debate (i.e. one person's self-defense could be considered murder, and vice versa). The definition can have some flux while the law that uses those terms can be strict.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

A requirement can't be strict if its own definition isn't.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yes it can, that's literally the entire basis of constitutional law. We can bicker about the interpretation of the words, but the words themselves aren't subject to change, and we make the requirement more strict through case law. That's the whole reason we separate the legislature from the judiciary, the legislature create the laws, and the judiciary defines the edges of the interpretation of those laws.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If there's a strict requirement that candidates be "scrombled" but no definition of what scrombled means, it never gets tested, and the only guy challenged on it is as a proxy for his being Black, there isn't any hard rule at all.

Rules can only be strict if they have established parameters.

There are no defined parameters for "natural born".
Could argue it only applies to clones.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

But they do. The agencies that monitor such things have policies, and those are the defacto parameters until someone challenges them and we get a court ruling. That's how things work in government, the legislative branch passes a law, the executive interprets the law, and the judicial branch hears cases when people disagree with the executive branch's interpretation of the law.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What are the policies for what "natural born" means?

If there were clear parameters as you claim why did McCain supporters have to bother with Senate Resolution 511?

[–] sugar_in_your_tea 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

The resolution was made to prevent a legal challenge. Policy is not law, it's policy, and policies can be challenged in the courts. So to avoid a potentially drawn out legal challenge, the Senate clarified their understanding of the law to avoid the whole thing.

They probably didn't need to make the resolution in order to allow McCain to run, and the judicial branch likely would've found that McCain was, in fact, eligible, such a legal suit could stall or change (i.e. in the court of public opinion) election results, hence the resolution.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Why would they fear a challenge if the parameters were clear as you say?

[–] sugar_in_your_tea 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Why wouldn't they? Even something that seems like an open and shut case can take months or even years in court to resolve. That takes time away from campaigning, as well as likely reduced support for the accused. It's the same idea as a smear campaign.

So to avoid drama, they made that resolution so his candidacy wouldn't be questioned.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

So there aren't clear parameters.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea 1 points 10 months ago

There are. We're going in circles at this point.

[+] [email protected] -8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Congrats on missing the point.

Also

There is only one way to peacefully change the constitution - and that's through an amendment.

So did you miss the part where I started the statement with “Should amend”?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago (2 children)

So everyone gets a ballot with their social security number on it or something?

I know you jest, but chill dude. Not every reply is an attack.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I know you jest, but chill dude.

I was with you, but you completely lost me here. It's also the most bizarre place to rush in and take a side. There's some interesting points being made about whether your vote should have legal consequences, about what it means to be it be disqualified as a candidate versus whether that should manifest in the act of voting.

And, of all the subjects, you're choosing to weigh in in favor of the idea that people should have a blank check to misinterpret statements without correction.

Maybe it's the philosophy major in me, but this degree of casual disregard for truth, and viewing other people's desire for truth as an unwarranted overreaction, it leaves an awfully bitter taste. I go back and forth on how I feel about Lemmy as an offer of hope and improvement upon Reddit, and this is a moment where my optimism fades.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

If you are not jesting and seriously want to void the secrecy of the ballot and criminalize the act of voting...

Then you are as much a threat to democracy and the constitution as Trump is and I really wouldn't mind if you went back to reddit and stayed there.

[+] [email protected] -7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Not every jest requires a educational response. I’m still pretty sure you missed the point.

edit:

So everyone gets a ballot with their social security number on it or something?

This seems like a question from someone completely unfamiliar with how some people in some states, such as felons, lose their right to vote, and not only can it be tracked, but some of them have been sent back to jail for voting even though they didn’t know they weren’t allowed to vote.

Do I agree with that last part? Depends on the felon and the felony, but the point in this reply is that you don’t need ballots with social security numbers for such enforcement.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Writing in a candidate is still anonymous and should stay so.

[+] [email protected] -7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Not in every state. Hawaii and other states send you a ballot with a unique number, associated with your voter registration, so you can track if your vote was counted properly, and for election officials to enforce various measures (as well as possible) like preventing someone from voting twice.

Anyway, since it apparently needs explaining for you, the point of my original comment is that if someone casts a write-in vote for a convicted insurrectionist, who was removed from their ballot because the state or country judged the candidate guilty of insurrection activity to overthrow the government, then that voter should be considered complicit in or supportive of insurrection activity, and similarly disqualified from voting for a period of time.

This is a personal opinion of something that will probably never happen, even though entirely possible, so since you’ve already identified it as a jest, take your own advice and chill about it.

I’m done here.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

They'll generally have a 2 envelope scheme if things are marked with a serial number. One envelope to track that you voted that contains a sealed envelope with your votes. Its unlawful to open the second envelope until they're unable to tell whose vote it is. Sure, you could figure out who someone voted for, but you are not allowed to.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 10 months ago

And since we’re talking about a proposed measure that will likely never come to pass, we can also imagine that if such an amendment were to be made, it could include a loophole allowing for ballots casting votes for disqualified insurrectionists to be investigated to find out who those voters are. Really not that big of a leap.

Goddamn y’all are exhausting.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea 17 points 10 months ago (3 children)

I strongly disagree. Voting should never be illegal or have legal repercussions. Ever. Not only is it protected speech under the first amendment, it's more importantly a critical part of our democratic system.

There should be stiff consequences for running for an office you know you are disqualified from, but casting a vote should never be illegal for legal voters.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The US seems to disqualify quite a lot of voters for reasons that don't apply in most other "western" countries though.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That may be true, I'm not sure on the facts surrounding that. If you have specific sources, I'd be interested in seeing them.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Well, can jailed people vote in the US?

[–] sugar_in_your_tea 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Fair point, but I think that only applies to felonies (you can generally vote if it's just a misdemeanor), and most states restore voting rights as soon as they're released.

Do other countries allow currently incarcerated people with felonies to vote?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Yea , that is more a 3rd world country way. Most countries do not remove basic rights besides you freedom when jailing them. Can't think of any examples actually.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 10 months ago

Some of them can, yes.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Right, I don't agree that it should be a legal consequence.

I do however think it should be a moral consequence, a judgment visited on those who would cast such a ridiculous vote. The best way I've heard it termed, is that Trump isn't merely unqualified, he's unqualified squared, which is to say, if you think he's fit to be president, then you also aren't qualified.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea 1 points 10 months ago

With votes being anonymous, I'm not sure who is going to provide any sort of moral consequence here. Those who support him likely mostly watch media that supports him. The government shouldn't have a say in morality, they deal in law.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Noted, we can agree to disagree.

Also noted is that the 14th Amendment is inherently undemocratic by design, preventing anyone from being able to vote in Confederate insurrectionists.

And, as said before, there are already instances in our country where voting illegally gets you jail time, so, like many other rights, it’s not completely unabridged at present time.

What’s amazing to me is that my original comment could be distilled down to “sure would be nice if treasonous voters supporting treasonous, disqualified candidates were also penalized for being treasonous”, with a measure that almost certainly would never happen, and you’re wasting your time arguing over this.

I didn’t even suggest they go to jail or face fines, just temporarily lose voting rights for a period of time to think about what they did.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

my original comment could be distilled down to “sure would be nice if treasonous voters supporting treasonous, disqualified candidates were also penalized for being treasonous”

And I completely disagree with that notion. Voting for a treasonous person isn't treason, it's a wasted vote because a treasonous person is ineligible to hold office.

The only crime you could commit when voting is fraud, meaning you're voting more times than you're allowed to. You should be allowed to cast your vote however you want with no fear or reprisal, and it's on you to make that vote count.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Noted, still don’t care, you’re welcome to your opinion.