this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2024
80 points (91.7% liked)

politics

19072 readers
3827 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
80
Oregon Supreme Court won’t remove Trump from ballot for now, says it’s waiting on SCOTUS (www.cnn.com)
submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
14 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 15 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah it would be clearest if there was a single stance the Supreme Court can take. My layman non-American analysis sees it largely going one of 3 ways:

A - US Supreme Court adds no comment and lets the Colorado court decide: Each state's supreme court has the final decision whether Trump is on the ballot where challenged.

B - US Supreme court overrides Colorado court and says Trump needs to be allowed on ballot no matter what because the Constitution doesn't matter if Congress does nothing about it, self-executing-schmexecuting, except where it's convenient for SCOTUS interests. Then, anyone challenging Trump's eligibility as a candidate will need to challenge over a different rule. **

C - US Supreme court rules that Trump violated 14th amendment and is ineligible, so wherever Trump is challenged courts will have precedent to bar him.

** Funny sidenote from the Maine case, one of the challenges was that since Trump asserts he won in 2020, he cannot run for 3 terms per the 22nd Amendment. That challenge was denied because neither group made a case that Trump won in 2020.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (3 children)

The phrasing of the 14th is VERY specific:

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

"or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States" - Would mean the President. It's a civil office.

"or as an officer of the United States" - This, we would need the court for. He swore an oath, but is the Office of the President an officer of the United States? The other options here clearly do not apply.

"to support the Constitution of the United States" - This is the big one. The Presidential Oath of Office does not use the word "support".

"shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." - This is the piece we really NEED the court to rule on and the piece I think they will attempt to dodge the hardest.

Because there is a crimimal case pending, I really doubt they'll say anything that will impact that case, one way or the other.

They may wait for that case to proceed and rule on all of it together.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago

Article 6 of the Constitution says, with my emphasis on a pertinent part:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be Required as a Qualification To any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but I'd think that the President is "an executive Officer of the United States" thus bound by the oath/affirmation they took, regardless of whether the oath said "support the Constitution" verbatim, to support the Constitution per this article...

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

He has already been found to be an insurrectionist in several courts now, that part is not up for debate, he is. If the Supreme Court rule that even if he is an insurrectionist it's ok then they are saying the president is above the law, essentially the argument Trump's lawyer was trying to make in his DC case. This would also mean we have just made Biden a dictator as he would no longer need to hold an election or step down. It would be King Biden until he hands the power over to someone else.

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

Found to be an insurrectionist, but not convicted of insurrection and that's the rub, I don't think the Supremes are going to be willing to put their thumb on the scale in a criminal case that hasn't even gone to trial yet.

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

It doesn't say you have to be convicted of insurrection, just engage in insurrection, or give aid or comfort to those that did. And a vote of 2/3 from Congress and the Senate would be required to over-ride that (which will never happen) to remove that disqualification.

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

The 14th was written in a simpler time, when it was easy to see who the Confederates were.

Trump is making the argument that he wasn't overthrowing anything, that he was attempting to preserve his legitimate government.

Now you and I know that's bullshit, but it's not on the same level as, you know, signing articles of Confederacy and waging actual war.

In the end, Jack Smith and the 1/6 trial will decide it, but I don't think the Supremes are going to decide it before it even gets started

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

It's already been decided he did in several courts, it's been determined to be a fact of law, he committed insurrection. The only piece of the puzzle is if the Supreme Court wants to weigh in on if it pertains to a President,or if they remain hands off and will just let every state decide their own interpretation of the amendment. Several states have already said he was allowed on the primary only because they didn't feel like the 14th amendment applied to primary elections, but would 100% apply when it was time for federal election. So if left up to the states I think we would see even more of them do the correct thing here in order to comply with the constitution.

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

The office of president is also a military office. Potus is also the commander in chief. The military bit covers that too.

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

Civilian commander, the President is, by design, not a military position.

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

Makes sense... Oregon's legal system is strained as it is without having to run appeals through the 9th circuit and Supremes.

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

This is the best summary I could come up with:

The ruling comes after Colorado and Maine kicked Trump off the ballot, after judges and officials determined that his role in the January 6 insurrection renders him ineligible for office.

They have said the “insurrection ban” was designed specifically to protect the country from someone like Trump – who, in their eyes, violated his oath of office when he tried overturn the 2020 election and incited the deadly Capitol riot.

Trump has claimed that the lawsuits are a thinly veiled attempt to abuse the legal system and distort the Constitution in a way that blocks him from the White House because he can’t be beaten at the polls.

The 14th Amendment, which was ratified after the Civil War, says US officials who take an oath to uphold the Constitution are disqualified from holding future office if they “engaged in insurrection” or have “given aid or comfort” to insurrectionists.

Free Speech For People, a liberal advocacy group, filed the lawsuit late last year directly at the Oregon Supreme Court.

Oregon Secretary of State LaVonne Griffin-Valade, a Democrat, previously asked the court to throw out the case on procedural grounds.

The original article contains 609 words, the summary contains 188 words. Saved 69%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!