this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2023
611 points (98.4% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2341 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
top 40 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 90 points 10 months ago (4 children)

The whole “he has to be convicted of insurrection” argument isn’t even the precedent. IANAL but Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee weren’t even tried. Presumably the people who wrote the amendment would have had insurrection trials for Confederate officers and prominent politicians if they thought it was required to ban them from holding office. (Instead, they pardoned a lot of those people.)

I mean, obviously, I’m not naive. The current SCOTUS will find a way to allow Trump to run. Originalists abandon originalism whenever it’s convenient.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The whole “he has to be convicted of insurrection” argument isn’t even the precedent.

Even more important, the 14th Amendment says nothing about a requirement of conviction for the person to be excluded for eligibility because of insurrection. Specifically mentioning "conviction" as a requirement is used elsewhere in the Constitution for other things (impeachment as an example), so its not on the concept is foreign to the document.

[–] Ultraviolet@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

States are free to run their elections however they want, as long as they end up sending the correct number of electors to DC. You'd think the "states rights" crowd would know and support that.

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

The whole thing is kinda silly anyways since the primaries aren’t “real” elections. The RNC can pick any candidate they want regardless of the outcome of the primaries. They make their own rules so that can change them to whatever they want. For example because Trump has been removed from the ballot in Colorado (including as a write-in), the GOP is likely to petition the RNC to allow them to caucus, which is way less formal and more chaotic in my opinion, but is a loophole since there is no ballot.

Of course this all depends on what SCOTUS does with respect to the 14th amendment. Even that is kinda sketchy since, like you said, there have been candidates removed from ballots that were not convicted let alone even tried. Although Congress posthumously lifted the disqualification from Lee in 1975, and Davis in 1978. There was one candidate removed but he was actually convicted, a Victor Berger from Wisconsin. But even that conviction was overturned by SCOTUS and he later ran and won. I guess you could say no one really has the balls to test it properly.

[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The Victor Berger from Wisconsin one is so ridiculous. He engaged in no violent insurrection. But he was a socialist and published editorials. They tried to use the “given aid or comfort to the enemies” part to ban him from Congress

Honestly, I wish there had been trials and stuff during reconstruction.

[–] DogWater@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

This is what I am trying to find out about for myself. Does he need to be convicted of something somewhere? I was just looking for info about this yesterday and all I can find is Jack Smith and Colorado stuff. I care about 14th amendment stuff because nothing else matters.

[–] whatupwiththat@kbin.social 64 points 10 months ago

cue the Nazi army to terrorize this Woman in 3,2,1 ~ fucking hate this timeline

[–] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 45 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

Not all heroes wear capes!

Edit: here’s a mirror to a conservative Louisiana opinion piece. It’s written about as well as you would expect it to be.

https://archive.is/b21WY

[–] Captainvaqina@sh.itjust.works 53 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Oh look, the traitors are doxxing her and implying stochastic terrorism.

These piles of trash need to be deported. They aren't American any longer.

[–] axsyse@lemmy.sdf.org 20 points 10 months ago (6 children)

But, like, to where would they be deported? That typically implies sending them back to their place of origin, but in this case they're almost always from the US. Perhaps exile would be a better term to use.

My proposal: exile them to Texas (let's call it a "Texile"), and then let Texas have that independence they seem to so strongly desire.

[–] Pretzilla@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

Back to Russia

[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago
[–] runner_g@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

A small island in the middle of the Pacific. They can live out their libertarian dream lives there

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

We'll see how quickly they reverse course on their global warming denialism.

[–] MuhammadJesusGaySex@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Just drag them out of the environment.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I say we find one of the most uninhabitable places and give them just a few acres. Texas has a lot of our resources. Let's carve off some section of North Dakota or a place like that, and make sure it has no minerals underneath the soil and send them there to enjoy their "freedoms".

[–] archonet@lemy.lol 3 points 10 months ago

maybe they can even build a casino there.

[–] EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)
[–] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 14 points 10 months ago

Yuppppp. They offer nothing of value to the world.

[–] ridethisbike@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

"you can always tell the crazies by their stickers"... Yep sure can. And I see a lot more of that from the right than I do anyone else sooooo....

[–] Bumblefumble@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago

Wow. That was a lot of things, but journalism is not one of them.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

My word, they are terrible. Also, WTAF is a "neocommunist"?

[–] chilburn06@lemmy.ml 26 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Really surprised anyone in my state would bring this forward.

[–] CCF_100@sh.itjust.works 13 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Honestly same, but I'm all in for it

[–] Seasoned_Greetings@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

As a fellow Louisianian, I'm here for it too. But I have strong doubts about it going anywhere.

[–] Fester@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago

Even in solid red or blue states, there’s always 15-40% that consistently vote the other way. Maybe not in bumfuck county specifically, but overall throughout any given state, there’s at least 1-in-6 people who probably never vote Republican at worst, and more than 1-in-3 at best. That’s a lot of people.

Louisiana does look especially bad though - worse than being a Democrat in TX or FL even.

[–] sigh@lemmy.world 20 points 10 months ago

Very legal, very cool

[–] eran_morad@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

Christ. Look at that greasy, orange fuck.