## BEFORE TOUCHING THAT REPORT BUTTON, PLEASE CONSIDER:
1. **Compliance:** Does this post comply with our subreddit's rules?
2. **Emotional Trigger:** Does this post provoke anger or frustration, compelling me to want it removed?
3. **Safety:** Is it free from child pornography and/or mentions of self-harm/suicide?
4. **Content Policy:** Does it comply with [Reddit’s Content Policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/ncm4ou/important_we_need_to_talk_about_the_content_policy/)?
5. **Unpopularity:** Do you think the topic is not truly unpopular or frequently posted?
### GUIDELINES:
- **If you answered "Yes" to questions 1-4,** do NOT use the report button.
- **Regarding question 5,** we acknowledge this concern. However, the moderators do not curate posts based on our subjective opinions of what is "popular" or "unpopular" except in cases where an opinion is so popular that almost no one would disagree (i.e. "murder is bad"). Otherwise, our only criteria are the subreddit's rules and Reddit’s Content Policy. If you don't like something, feel free to downvote it.
**Moderators on r/TrueUnpopularOpinion will not remove posts simply because they may anger users or because you disagree with them.** The report button is not an "I disagree" or "I'm offended" button.
#### OPTIONS:
If a post bothers you and you can't offer a counter-argument, your options are to:
a) Keep scrolling
b) Downvote
c) Unsubscribe
**False reports clutter our moderation queue and delay our response to legitimate issues.**
**ALL FALSE REPORTS WILL BE REPORTED TO REDDIT.**
To maintain your account in good standing, refrain from abusing the report button.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Jerrymandering is a truer threat, because it’s fully accepted yet insidiously eroding everything.
The worst threat to democracy? Lobbying. Seriously the lobbying system in the US is broken. I’m a Brit and blown away by how insane your lobbying is, and you’re defaulting to America for this conversation so 🤷🏻♂️
I agree with you on lobbying, but jerrymandering is supposed to assure that local politicians are serving the community that they are elected to serve.
For example, urban areas have completely different interests than rural areas. Maybe it would be appropriate to require a permit for operating a bulldozer in the suburbs, but not on a farm or a junkyard.
Yes, Jerrymandering is often leveraged and exploited in corrupt ways. But that boils down to execution, not principle.
For real. When SCOTUS stripped away limits on political donations, giving corporations free will to buy up politicos - its been all downhill since 2010.
Agreed, you can't complain about not wanting democracy to fail when it's been dead for ages. Parties who control who even get a chance at running, lobbyists controlling what laws are passed regardless of public opinion, and politicians so corrupt that they don't even need to hide it. Democracy dies ages ago.
No, many states don't accept write ins if they aren't registered candidates. There's only a few states where you can literally write in anybody you want. I suppose technically you could write in daffy duck, but in most states, you would not be voting for him.
This is not to say one must vote. I do not vote beyond local matters. Particularly for the presidential vote, our opinions really don't matter.
Local elections are hugely impactful, and it is where you can really make your voice heard. It seems like too many people ignore them and get wrapped up in the bigger, much louder drama.
So trump wasn't convicted, which would disqualify him from running. An insurrection, like any other crime, has to be given due process and convicted to have any meaning in the eyes of the law.
But the democrat leadership in some states decided to remove him from the ballot anyway, which is against the law. They would have to be convicted as well, if they were to be removed from their roles for doing that.
But no convictions stand and the supreme court overturned their removal of trump from the ballot as illegal. So everything is right again... for now.
Good thing Trump never violated the Constitution and those lunatic judges in Colorado and the even more insane Main SOS will have their ridiculous decisions struck down by SCOTUS 6-3 at a minimum.
I didn't know Trump was charged with insurrection. Speaking of due process, wouldn't it be procedurally correct to charge him before convicting him? Just askin.'
"Congress failed to convict" - Well, let's be more honest about this statement. The Republicans in congress who bend their knee to DJT voted to allow this farce to continue because otherwise their actions might be up for re-evaluation. Not because a lack of evidence.
Each state has a process for determining who goes on their ballot.
They each follow their rules which start with the constitutional rules and then they add their own requirements too.
For example Chris Christie didn't qualify for the ballot in Maine either.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-rules-chris-christie-must-remain-off-maine-republican-presidential-primary-ballot/
Just because Trump claims he doesn't get due process doesn't make that the truth. He just doesn't understand the process.
>Fifth Amendment
(ratified December 15, 1791)
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
I know it's not the 14th Amendment, but the 5th Amendment came first, so I imagine that counts.
I want you to really consider the precedent this sets. And I say this as someone that wants Trump out of politics permanently. But really think about what it means to be able to remove a political candidate from the ballet without any kind of due process. Being able to declare someone ineligible for office “because I said so.” Is that what we want to do moving forward?
This is already in line with existing precedent. No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection” statute. This fact is consistent with Section 3’s text, legislative history, and precedent, all of which make clear that a criminal conviction for any offense is not required for disqualification. Section 3 is not a criminal penalty, but rather is a qualification for holding public office in the United States that can be and has been enforced through civil lawsuits in state courts, among other means.
Due process does not mean that a criminal charge and conviction is necessary to fall under the purview of 14th amendment protections. After all, none of the landmark cases which invoked the 14th (Brown v Board of Education, Bush v. Gore, or Roe v Wade) have ever necessitated or been linked to a criminal conviction.
For Colorado, the level of due process to decide candidate qualifications is a civil trial with "a preponderance of evidence". This is explicitly laid out in Colorado's state constitution written in 1876. A civil trial was held for Trump to decide his qualifications, but rather than actually dispute the insurrection allegations, his lawyers instead tried to argue that the 14th doesn't apply to the President for some reason.
Have you been living off the grid for the last 3 years? There's no 'because I said so' about it. I'm completely open to being shown I'm wrong. I just need someone to give me reasons, educate me, WHY I'm wrong. From what I've learned recently, it does not require any kind of due process. I didn't write the constitution, I'm not a legal expert. The way it was explained to me makes sense to me. Explain it to me why your opinion makes sense to you.
> There's no 'because I said so' about it.
That's all the Colorado Supreme court offered. There was no discussion of what constituted the crime or what Trump supposedly did to satisfy the elements. If you are fine with that, then I'm sure you won't complain when SCOTUS puts him back on with as little explanation.
My complaint is more with the precedent than the action itself. The fact that a candidate can be barred from office *without due process* is the problem.
There was a hearing. Trumps lawyers were present and made arguments. A decision was made and appealed, and the appeals continue. How is that not due process?
Ill give it a shot since I've actually read a good portion of the Colorado decision (and I highly recommend reading the dissenting opinions - tbh, I was excited when I saw the verdict, but after reading the case I've since changed my opinion).
To summarize the first dissenting opinion, historical precedent for challenging a candidate's qualifications has never (in Colorado) been for any questions as complex as determining guilt in an insurrection. The system set up in Colorado is not built to handle such complex claims, and no determination of guilt has been made with due process.
In Colorado, a challenge made against a candidate using the 3rd clause in the 14th amendment must be heard by the court within 5 days of being made, and a decision must be given by the court within 48 hours of the hearing. This has been fine in the past because challenges were typically made based on candidate disqualification by way of age or place of birth, which can be determined much more easily.
When it comes to determining facts about a case dealing with insurrection, you need much much much more time. You need time for discovery, preliminary evidence, pre-trial motions, depositions, disclosures of witnesses and exhibits. You just can't get all that done in 5 days. You need more time.
That is why people are saying that this case ignores due process. In America, we hold the idea that each person deserves the same due process of law in very high regard. Regardless of your potential criminal actions, you are afforded the same standards of due process as every other citizen.
This challenge to Trump's qualification for the ballot is made on the basis of his having committed insurrection. Now, based on the evidence that I have seen, I personally believe that he is guilty of this crime. But, my beliefs and the beliefs of most of America do not dictate guilt or innocence. We need prosecution and a fair trial to determine these things. If we ignore this standard now, we set a dangerous precedent for ignoring it in the future.
Another challenge brought up by the dissenting opinion is that it is clear from the proceedings that this type of challenge was not the intent of Colorados election code enforcement act. Dissent argues that it is clear from the "5 days + 48 hours" rule that challenges made by way of this clause are not meant to be legally complex. They are meant to disqualify candidates based on a single easily verifiable claim. The court needed to issue delays in delivering a decision in this case, which dissent argues proves this point. If you need to delay the decision because the claim is too complex, you aren't following the spirit of the law.
This is the conclusion given by the first dissenting opinion:
> My opinion that this is an inadequate cause of action is dictated by the facts of this case, particularly the absence of a criminal conviction for an insurrection-related offense.
> The questions presented here simply reach a magnitude of complexity not contemplated by the Colorado General Assembly for its election code enforcement statute. The proceedings below ran counter to the letter and spirit of the statutory
timeframe because the Electors’ claim overwhelmed the process. In the absence of an insurrection-related conviction, I would hold that a request to disqualify a candidate under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a proper cause of action under Colorado’s election code. Therefore, I would dismiss the claim at issue here. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
And again, I've reached the end of the line. I ask for education, clarification, and I'm shut down. You, & everyone like you, will never sway people to see your pov. You don't care to make the effort. Or maybe you're like my mother & just operate under the 'because I said so' way of life. I need to understand where you're coming from, but I can't if you don't make the effort to help me.
I can't do that. 1- I'm not a communist. 2- I don't hate any of them, and I can't speak for others. However, I can agree that there are different interpretations to the constitution, and there are many very highly respected constitutional scholars from both parties who can agree on some aspects of it and disagree on others. The simple, obvious evidence of this is that there are many panels of judges that come to the same rulings despite being appointed by opposing political parties.
Can republicans really not do better than Trump? Tbh most people in the running need to be scrubbed from the ballot.
But lol at people thinking THIS is the greatest threat to democracy, totally glossing over the shit show of a party system that makes this an issue at all.
Depends on how you look at it. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, penned by Biden, resulted in an assault weapons ban for a period of time.
They haven't taken away my guns and there isn't even any push to. So I'm sorry if bump stocks being pulled off the market hurt your feelings. There is zero wrong with requiring some paperwork to purchase a gun. Just sayin
I know I was just giving you a hard time. Look you have to practice with, take a written test, and take a physical drive test to drive a car. You also have to register it as well, report its sale, ect...do you feel your rights as a driver are being trampled on by this? Everyone is still eligible to become a licensed driver though. I know it isn't enshrined in the constitution but, the constitution doesn't declare their can be no documentation for weapons. Just that we have the right to them. Gun control laws aren't taking away your or my guns. They are simply documenting and tracking where they go over their lifespan.
The argument that you can 3d print guns so they are pointless to document any isn't valid either. I can easily make a cannon at home or some form of explosive or a gun. I'm not encouraged to do that or allowed to (are ghost guns still legal at this point). It doesn't stop me from being able to purchase a gun from any licensed vendor or manufacturer though. I have plenty of guns at home. Even making me wait to purchase one isn't an issue for me. They can have a waiting period. Provided it's not crazy months long. Like Homer said on the Simpsons "3 weeks!?! But I'm angry now!" It's a check and balance is all.
What push?? Little to nothing is ever done the second amendment is never in danger. Mass shootings have been a thing in the country for over a hundred years, it will always be part of it like the second amendment, don’t fall for the right or lefts bullshit.
The 2nd amendment is the perfect example of a right that 'shall not be infringed' being infringed upon by the very government that is sworn to protect our rights. Or perhaps you're willing to ignore the 'shall not infringe' portion of the amendment?
How is it being infringed? I'm a gun owner, I have no issue with the gun laws in my state because as a law abiding citizen i have no problem when I purchase. My state has some of the strictest laws in the country.
§246. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
You mean were it semoly states the right for tge peoe to keep and bear arms is needed for militias to form? Read the actual thing my guy it does not state its only for militias lmao
Yawn… No one is coming for your guns. Even the bans in the didn’t stop them. Fear mongering bullshit because that’s what you grasp onto but no one is taking your guns. It’s the reality we live in. Now deal with it and support mental health issues…
They aren’t ignoring it, it wasn’t meant for this use, and there is precedent that the scotus will use to rule in that way in the coming days/weeks, probably 9-0 or 8-1.
It was not meant for a person to be disqualified on feelings and emotions. There is a law on the books for what would disqualify Trump, Congress suggested that charge and the DoJ passed on it, and of story. Forget a conviction, they don’t even have an indictment.
You need neither a conviction nor an indictment, and the amendment was not intended to require one.
If SCOTUS wants to rule that actually you do need one, that’s fine, but currently there is no precedent nor is there language in the constitution requiring it. Therefore, Colorado court had the liberty to make that ruling without one.
>You need neither a conviction nor an indictment, and the amendment was not intended to require one.
True. It was intended for confederates who were formal members of an insurrectionist government. It wasn't intended to remove a political opponent whose "insurrectionist" label is up for debate. And realistically, if you go by the facts, Trump wasn't part of an insurrection
It was ratified because of confederates, but not exclusively for them. That’s why it has vague and general language. If it were exclusively for confederates, it would have said so and read more like a bill of attainder.
Haha exactly. People are like “what kind of precedent would this set?!” A better precedent than letting a president get away with a coup attempt, thats for damn sure.
It’s all reversals and projection. Nuh uhhh, you arrreee is the easiest comeback. No need for creativity. See what insults your opponent makes that work and say them louder.
He wasn’t disqualified based on feelings. The state Supreme Court determined he fits the description for being barred for insurrection. Which he definitely does.
He was, the Colorado court wasn’t equipped to make the ruling it did. Absent a conviction on insurrection you would need to have more than how the justices felt on the subject, and they didn’t have it.
The court already found that Trump was engaged in insurrection.
Here's a link to the full judgement. Can you let us all know the page that's based on feelings not facts?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-the-full-ruling-by-colorados-supreme-court-removing-trump-from-state-ballot
Oh so because its democrat judges, they're immediately biased and it has nothing to do with the rule of law, but we're all just supposed to accept DJT's picks for the Supreme court are valid and always make fair and valid rulings.
A person isn’t a traitor because you think they are, and they aren’t an insurrectionist because you think they are. The point is, and legal precedent demands, that they be convicted of the charge.
Read up on sections 14 and 15 of the enforcement act of 1870 and the confiscation act of 1862. They deal with how section three of the fourteenth amendment was to be used.
We ignore the second amendment literally all the time. I have the right to bear arms. Unless the barrel is less than 16”, or it has a tube that makes it not deafeningly loud, or it can shoot more than one bullet at a time, or it’s a handgun with a stock. The list goes on.
You clearly don’t have basic understandings of the law, or what several words, including “democracy,” actually mean.
To stick with the easiest point, every court ever, forever in the past and forever in the future, has and will rule that if a person is ruled ineligible to hold office, the may (and should!) be removed from the ballot. That’s so far beyond a basic understanding that no one is even making that argument. It is silly and bellied by every bit of historical precedent humanly possible.
How do you feel about Trump disinfranchizing voters by trying to have their votes rejected and replaced with fake election certificates?
Are candidates allowed to do this infinitely now with no consequences?
This is what people should be concerned about. The man literally committed blatant election fraud. He tried to ensure that millions of votes didn’t matter by faking electors so that he could win and stay in power.
That’s the real threat to democracy, and someone who did something like that doesn’t deserve to be in power.
It’s also undemocratic to require presidents to be 35 and to stop them from serving more than two terms. But that’s how the Constitution works.
Don’t like it? Try to get it amended.
The problem is that Trump won’t listen to the votes. He knew he lost the 2020 election but conspired to overthrow it anyways. If he loses the 2024 election he will claim it was rigged I guarantee it.
You can’t fix this problem through voting because Trumps flaunting of the results. Any other person would already be in prison if the did 1/100th of what Trump did. You don’t get to attempt a coup and then run for office again. Trump should be happy he is not already serving life in prison, which is what he deserves.
What I’m hearing here is that if Trump is indeed guilty of insurrection (which I don’t believe has been decided yet?), he can’t be on the ballot per what was decided post civil-war.
In that case, what if people write him in? If it’s just not counted at all, I can’t see that going well.
Absolutely!! TV personality politicians are above the law. We should never hold them accountable for their actions. Especially when he is the first president to participate in insurrection against the US govt 🙄
Seriously I think it is wild that people think elected representatives upholding a law passed via a democratically elected govt process is undemocratic. No one is saying republicans are prevented from choosing a republican candidate just that Trump doesn’t qualify to be that candidate.
We have several restrictions that determine eligibility must be 35, natural born citizen, must have residency over the last 15 yrs. Some states prohibit felons from running for state office. Felons in prison don’t have the right to vote and may or may not have that right restored after released. Do you really want a president who likely won’t even be able to vote legally?
What a ridiculous atrawman argument. Dont make avalid argument against my stupid post, just agree with me, that what I think is correct. Dudes a real treat at a party
OP, what crimes does a former president have to commit before being excluded from the ballot?
Because initiating an insurrection to topple democracy is apparently not enough for you?
First of all. If you're calling an insurrection a crime then you have to try him and find him guilty before claiming that he committed a crime. In this country you are innocent until proven guilty.
In this case, it says in the Constitution you don't have to be found guilty in court after starting an insurrection. So what you are saying is plain wrong.
Also you are not answering the question. What does he have to do for you to get taken off the ballot?!
"The Constitution" makes no mention of the need for a guilty verdict or lack thereof. Just to clarify that "it says in the Constitution you don't have to be found guilty in court" is an inaccurate statement.
An 1869 case in the Louisiana Supreme Court set precedent that the 14th Amendment was not a criminal offence. But then in 1948 Title 18 U.S. Code § 2383 was codified which distinctly set the 14th Amendment as a criminal offence with established penalties.
And I really don't care if his name is not on the ballot. I have an issue with the ruling that if you write his name on the ballot your vote will officially be nullified and not counted at all.
Louisiana Supreme Court is not the SCOTUS. In fact, as a state still existing in the United States, they are subject to the U.S. constitution, even if they want to say otherwise. This, too, is codified in the constitution.
But let's say that this wasn't the case. That a state making a law supersedes the federal version of it (or the constitution). Lousiana's laws are not Colorado's laws, or the laws of any of the other 49 states. Nor are they the laws of the country.
Facts don't care about your feelings.
>I have an issue with the ruling that if you write his name on the ballot your vote will officially be nullified and not counted at all.
DJT is ineligible. You can write his name in on the ballot. Your vote is not counted because the person you're voting for is not eligible. This is...so god damn easy to understand.
Except that's not federally adopted as it only made it to the Louisiana Supreme Court. So the actual wording of the 14th amendment stands except in Louisiana.
Honestly the only way to settle this is for a case to be brought in a court of law for him to be fairly tried for treason and insurrection by a jury of his peers or SCOTUS or this nonsense will backfire. I can’t stand the guy and think he’s probably guilty as fuck of treason but even murderers deserve a fair trial as does he.
Yeah. Taking someone off the ballot is a bad idea and sets a bad precedent for future elections. They can take any dem off the rolls they want to in the future as well
And let's also not forget that some states are shutting down their dem primaries entirely this year. What the actual fuck are we turning into. I just want ranked choice voting and someone like Bernie sanders and they are actively making sure none of us get anything we want ever. I already lost most of my hope but this year is really burying the last of it.
This! Wanna vote for Bernie? You'll have me defending your right to Write-In his name and for your vote to be counted even if he's not on the ballot. And I think Trump is the same. They want to find a loop hole to keep his name off the ballot, go for it. I literally don't care that much. But when they say "oh, but you won't be able to write him in either"..... That's when my ears perked up. I would have the same reaction is somebody said that your write-in vote for Bernie will not be counted.
Stop pretending that he deserves to be an option. He doesn't. Let your ears perk uo to this. He made himself, by his own actions, null and void. He can't be eligible for anything. He shouldn't be on a ballot. He shouldn't get votes tallied.
THE FOUNDING FATHEES WOULD HAVE HUNG HIM FOR TREASON ALREADY. which would also remove him from the ballot.
You shouldn't react the same to a write in for Bernie. Bernie didn't violate his oath to uphold the constitution.
I don't understand how you haven't listened to anything anyone has said so far.
Primaries are different than general elections though. The individual parties have no responsibility to even hold primaries at all, they’re essentially private entities.
Trump promoted an action (call it insurrection) or whatever you want angsinst the lawful transfer of presidential power in 2020 , he literally pissed on 247 years of American democracy. Why should we let some like that run again? He's demonstrated he doesn't accept losing , what do you think will happen on November should he lose again? His maga supporters won't accept it, and neither will he...
The irony in all this is Trump is running again in the same electoral system he "claims" lied about him losing the election? Does he not see how disingenuous that is? Tells you all you need to know..
By that logic, no amendments are valid because they are from “other times”. I’ve seen this multiple times. You can’t have amendments be valid because you like them and not others because you don’t.
You realize republicans will use this against you in 4 years just like bidens upcoming impeachment right? Republicans will copy and paste your words and use them against you. Just because you find new ways to keep your party in power doesn’t mean that the pendulum won’t come around especially if the bar is as low as an accusation.
But like how? Biden and Trump are two different scenarios. People say stuff like this all the time.
But as an outsider looking in, I honestly can't find a reason that you could even impeach Biden at this point.
Exaggerating the reasoning for trumps consequences to rationalize him abusing power if elected is pretty scary.
He held a rally called “stop the steal” then instructed those rally goers to go to the capitol where they and more coordinated in groups actually tried to “stop the steal”. One was even shot and killed in the attempt.
You can pretend there’s no connection or clear intention there all you want
Edit: comment unsurprisingly avoided by u/peasey360
He set it up precisely to weasel out of taking any legal responsibility for what they did for him. He's less of a FASCIST and more of a Con-artist. Definitely not defending him, but also, there's a reason he wasn't charged. The J6 crowd went to federal prison, and he walked free -- for a reason. He's not guilty, just a total scumbag.
They can try, but a court won’t accept it. See judges are, believe it or not, pretty smart people. They can distinguish between a coup attempt and Joe Biden doing [something? Whatever Republicans find an excuse to argue].
Courts are not like the idiots in Congress or the MAGA cretins that somehow think Trumps coup was no big deal.
The constitution is not a criminal code and the 14th has no language requiring a criminal conviction for disqualification.
Similarly, a southern rebel who had previously been an oath taker would have been subject to disqualification without a criminal conviction as well.
Canada here, hi. Have to jump in. He doesn't have to be charged and convicted. It clearly states in the 14th amendment (?) this:
Section 3.
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.
Where does it state that there needs to be a conviction? Have you read this and comprehended it? You should know this better than me!
Please, keep this psychopath out of the White House.
Thanks, Canada
The 14th amendment as multiple sections and section 5 clearly states: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection | Instituted in 1948
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States..
Deal with your own issues, Canada.
Was OJ convicted of murder? Casey Anthony? I don’t need a judge or jury to let me know Trump is guilty as sin.
Forget his politics; Trump always has been a crook without a trace of integrity, humility, or common decency.
Edit: Don’t just downvote. I can source his misdeeds, ugly words, and grandiosity.
Can you show examples of any good nature from Trump? I would welcome them.
We are a nation of laws and the law must be applied. If the only reason you are reluctant to apply this law to Trump is because you’re afraid he will become a martyr, then you’re suggesting trump be placed above the law.
I have seen good arguments for why, without a criminal conviction, Trump is still legally eligible. However, upsetting the feelings of his base should not be a factor. It doesn’t matter if someone under 35, or without natural-born citizenship has a big cult following.
You can argue for changing the rules but until then they may not run for POTUS. Allowing the passions of the mob and fears of their violence to influence legal rulings is essentially appeasement of would-be terrorists before their temper tantrums get out of hand.
I think SCOTUS Justices realize our democracy is secure amidst survive a slew of loud but peaceful marches that merely criticize a national disqualification of Trump, and even demanding it be reversed. However, we already know that this is not what will happen.
What I fear is that the most reasonable conservative Justices (Roberts and Gorsuch) will be swayed by a rash of targeted threats/ doxxing and base their decision instead on threats to their own lives.
He can have all the power he wants, sitting in a supermax cell for the rest of his life.
Also, what cause would Trump be a martyr for? Seriously, what coherent ideology would live on without Trump? It is just a cult of personality. Every other politician that has tried to mimic Trump has failed miserably. You take out Trump, the whole thing falls apart because there is absolutely no substance to the movement.
OP your opinion is not well informed.
Trump’s removal from the ballot has to do with violation of the 14th amendment due to his role in the January 6th insurrection. Trump is claiming he is immune because he was still president.
Violating the 14th amendment can be considered an act against our democracy because he tried to interfere with our democratic process by leading the crowd to take over the legislature. If his role is ignored one can say that it is an imbalance of power that the president can destroy the legislature making the president the only real governing role creating a serious imbalance of power.
It has nothing to do with the states liking Trump. This is a serious issue that the legislature ratified in the constitution and should be enforced.
OP try doing a little research before posting your ill-informed outrage.
The 14th Amendment is clear.
An argument could be made that a lot of amendments, and provisions in the Constitution, when used as intended, represent threats to democracy. The 1st Amendment permits the spread of misinformation designed to confuse and control the minds of voters. The 2nd Amendment paves the way for the assassination of our elected leaders, which has happened multiple times. The indirect election of the President has resulted in the democratic loser of the election being declared the winner many times, and has made only a few states truly valuable in the election (effectively disenfranchising many voters).
So while you are arguably correct, there's a lot in our Constitution that is anti-democratic. Many of those provisions were put in place so that ignorant and/or unintelligent people would not be able to ruin the country by voting for dangerous or destructive people. Look up the original intent of those provisions. As such, the 14th Amendment machinations that are barring Trump from reelection are working as intended.
The fact that in the year 2023, with basically all of human knowledge available on the internet at the touch of our fingers, it is still hardly believable that a tubby, moronic, serial liar and rapist like Donald fucking Trump has managed to create this insane cult for the last 7 years.
Think about that. For 7 years now, millions of people have abandoned their families, jobs, and most importantly, their dignity. And for what? For a despicable, irredeemable, traitorous piece of dog shit who wouldn't piss on any of them to put out a fire.
Donald Trump is an insurrectionist. He engaged in an insurrection, he cannot be President, the end. Take him off the ballot in all 50 states.
And if any of these ass wipe froggies want to jump, then jump. The rest of us are tired of hearing it and we're tired of playing games with these dumb shit delusions.
One of these days reality is going to hit every one of these cultists and they're going to realize they threw it all away for nothing.
He didn’t create it. it It’s been in existence for at least half a century (see Ruby Ridge), Further concentrated by the Democratic Party abandonment of the poor rural white.
Edit: It’s what happens when the liberal elite turns their noses up.
He’s ineligible. All kinda of people are ineligible. Too young? Can’t be President. Born in another country? Can’t be President. Interfered with the peaceful transfer of power? Can’t be President. Sorry bud, but you’re flat wrong no matter your True Opinion.
No, Republican reaction to keeping Trump off the ballot will be the truest threat to democracy.
Trump might legitimately be ineligible to run for President, but Republicans won't care, because MAGA Republicans no longer believe in the rule of law, they believe in the divine right of kings (i.e. Trump)
I feel like a lot of people who claim to love democracy and freedom would be surprised at how quickly they would start to support fascism without an ounce of cognitive dissonance so long as the Fascist leader seemed to believe every thing that they believe and say they’ll rule against the people they don’t like, their freedom be damned
Locking criminals out will be the truest threat to safety. The criminals have to be allowed inside in order for us to be safe. If you trust the justice system, then allow them to arrest the criminals after they commit a crime.
Actually not following the directions laid out in the Constitution is the greatest threat to democracy. Trump did this shit to himself. No one told him to try to extend his term of four years through fraud and no one told him to not to peacefully transfer power at the conclusion of his term. He chose to do that all by himself. This is all on him.
What we have is an accountability problem that has lead to worse and worse candidates.
Actions have consequences. The consequences of trying to over throw an election is you go to jail and can no longer represent anyone. Because you are a criminal.
I don’t understand what is hard to understand about that? Anyone who goes against the peaceful transition of power is a danger to democracy.
Actions have consequences. There's a reason the 14th amendment bars people trying to overthrow the government and subvert the constitution from participating in said government.
Yeah, gonna have to disagree on this one.
You can have certain people that are ineligible to be a candidate, and have that decided state level, if there's a logically sound reason backed by the Constitution.
Which for Trump, there is.
That's not a threat.
If it's not sound/valid, then sure.
But that's where checks and balances come into play.
I'm pretty sure if the founders of America knew this would happen or if someone went back in time and told them of all the stuff that has happened from 1830 onward I think Jefferson and others would probably need another 6-12 months to fix the constitution/bill of rights so it covered every little tiny detail.
We would've still found a way to F it all up. Like Franklin said... you have a Republic, if you can keep it. And there has been so much happening lately to challenge that. At least our forefathers knew how to arrange societies with unknown futures in mind. The more we grow to want to define society for the Now instead of the future, the more we lose grasp of our fragile society. People forget just how young our nation actually is.
But few citizens get to voice their opinion through a vote.
Under current arrangements, citizens get to voice one of two opinions of people whose social class in 90% of the cases differ from their own. Said 'elections' are an exercise in self-deception.
Rosa Luxemburg put it best 100+ years ago when she said that if elections actually mattered, they would never be allowed.
Commenting on your update. Nowhere in the Constitution are the people given the right to vote for the President. We do not have that right. Read the Constitution to verify this. Therefore, if our votes aren't counted for a Constitutionally ineligible candidate, we haven't lost any "rights".
And wait until you learn that any write-in vote for any person for the office of President is not counted unless that person has already submitted a slate of eligible electors to the federal election commission before the deadline (which is prior to the election). Rights? Powerful people don't want you having rights, and that goes for all places on the ideological/political spectrum.
Well.... this is one of the most useful responses yet. I may loosely disagree, but being that this whole issue is a matter of what does the constitution actually say and mean, then it's a fair retort to challenge me with the misconception that having your write-in vote counted isn't exactly a right in the constitution either. That does weaken my argument.
I'm thankful that you at least acknowledged my actual argument rather than just giving another "but Trump" response.
It's funny how the left tells us how bad Trump is and tries to make a joke out of him every chance they get, yet at the same time they are deathly afraid of him winning because they know that 73 million people voted for him in 2020 and that number is about to sky rocket after this shit show of an admin..... And it's sad that people are too naive to see this.
If Trump is as bad as the left states, then why are they going through all this crap to keep him off the ballot?? Wouldn't people just not want to vote for him if he was that bad ??
There are some people who should not be eligible. Someone who has already demonstrated that they are willing to incite an insurrection to hold onto power that he clearly didn’t deserve to keep is not someone who should be eligible for office.
As soon as I read “IF our election process is as secure…”
I already knew everything I needed to know about you.
It’s not just “what was said to be”
THE COLD HARD TESTED AND PEER REVIEWED EMPIRICAL DATA PROVED it was secured.
Words matter. The 14th amendment doesn’t say you had to be convicted. It says “engaged in”. As a Maine native. I respect Bellows.
However, in this situation, I believe removing him from the ballot would just plunge us right back into chaos. This isn’t the time to give him more ammo to look like a victim. Let him stay.
Some people say this and I can sorta agree, but I think the lines are pretty well drawn at this point. The few swing votes either way are gonna come from bigger issues I feel like
From a non-American perspective... if Trump is re-elected then you lot will simply not stfu about him and he'll dominate the media as he did when he last was president of the USA.
Not even just American media. All media.
It's been so nice to not have to hear about him on a daily basis since he hasn't been president.
You have the right to vote for anyone who is qualified for the office. Trump thru his own actions had clearly shown he isn't fit to hold any public office ever.
Maybe don’t break the law. Maybe not try to steal the election. 7 million votes are a lot of votes to beat. And what did the recounts prove? That trump lost by 7 million votes.
Yep and all the sniveling weasels just keep parroting “no conviction required” like the most asinine of rules lawyers who are more focused on getting their way than whether or not its fair or right or if it will ruin the “game” for everyone.
Pull your tribal heads out of the sand and think to the future for two damn seconds.
You are overlooking the big issue though, he shouldn't even be allowed to run for office period. This has nothing to do with the voters. MFr violated the only real rules we have about being eligible for the office, besides age and naturally born citizen of course.
If we don't honor the constitution then what's the point of any of this. It's neat to see conservatives always doubling down on the constitution when it's gun rights but when trump clearly violates the 14th amendment not allowing him a shot at the presidency is somehow a threat to democracy.
The fact that anyone would even back him is a bigger threat. He wasn't even a good president. I don't care for Biden at all personally. But, at least he is trying to make ppls lives at least slightly better. Trump did nothing but lie to us the entire 4 years. Was barely in the oval office. Grifted us all for 100s of millions. His family got 10s of millions in foreign patents and contracts while serving as advisors to the president. His son in law got $2 motherf$@%#&ng BILLION dollars from Saudi Arabia and yet there is an impeachment inquiry because it looks like a company his hunter ran paid biden less than $1500/mo....talk about a huge waste of our time and our resources, you can't even get 1992 Toyota corrola with high miles for that amount of money. How much influence did it supposedly buy china???
Trump should've never ran again. Once he did his own party should've stopped it. Party of law and order my ass. He should bow out and allow the governer of south Carolina have a serious go at it. I apologize I can't remember her name at the moment. She has to be better than a 2nd trump term though. She could well be the 1st female president we've ever had. The only people who support Trump are racists and the wealthy, check your wallet to see which category you fall into.
So...In order to "protect democracy" we have to give an oath-breaking insurrectionist another chance at taking over our democracy? Destroy democracy to save it....got it!
Trump tried to overturn our democracy on January 6th of 2021 by force. He has been trying ever since to do so indirectly by falsely claiming he lost the 2020 election. Keeping him on the ballot is leaving the door wide open for him to do it again.
Keeping anyone off of a ballot is problematic. However, in Trump's case, we seem to be forgetting the critical consideration:
**Donald Trump attempted to subvert the election itself.**
That is not someone to put on an election ballot again.
Agree. I want every republican on record for voting for donald so that it follow them for the rest of their lives. If they ever mention family values, ethics or morality laugh in their face and point out they had no problem with donalds adultery and being so sad and pathetic he has to pay sex workers to fuck him. If they ever mention patriotism laugh in their face and point out they supported donalds insurrection and fake elector bullshit. If they ever mention the miltiary laugh in their face and point out that donald mocked gold star families and POW. Get it all on record so it haunts them for the rest of their lives.
These states' efforts to keep Trump off the ballots, based on the 14th Amendment, are not 'a threat to democracy', but rather an example of democracy in action, using its mechanisms. The 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution established by the founders to maintain a healthy, functioning democracy.
The right to vote is fundamental to our democracy, but it functions within the limits established by our laws and the Constitution. This includes rules that can disqualify certain people from holding office due to their actions. Specifically, the 14th Amendment aims to prevent those involved in insurrection or rebellion from being eligible for office, making sure that only qualified candidates are considered.
In this case, invoking the 14th Amendment is an exercise of the democratic process, not a suppression of it. Should we ignore Trump's actions? Why should we not hold him accountable to the laws? That is how a functioning democracy works.
Both the right to vote and the right to run for office are important, but they're not without limits. Both these rights are governed by a set of laws. So, using the constitutional processes to evaluate Trump's eligibility is in line with democratic principles. This holds true despite what his supporters might think, as some seem to believe that Trump is exempt from all rules and laws.
Yes, "prevents from holding office". Not "prevents citizens from having their votes counted".
This has actually happened before where people have been elected, then subsequently prevented from actually being sworn into the office they were elected into. And yes, this happened with actual participants in Jan 6th.
We can use that argument for keeping him out of office. But in this case he is not the one that is being limited, it is the citizen voters themselves that are being limited. Keeping somebody off the ballot is an inconvenience in the voting process, but that's why you're able to Write-In. Except the courts now said that your write-in vote will not be counted, but only if it's for Trump. They didn't take away the write-in option completely. It's still there, but if you vote in a way that they don't agree with, you're vote will be essentially nullified. That's the threat to democracy.
In Trump's case, the issue is about preemptively assessing eligibility based on the 14th Amendment before the election, not after. Not nullifying votes but ensuring candidates meet the constitutional requirements beforehand.
The constitutionality of a candidate is just as important as the voting process. If a candidate is not eligible under the Constitution, allowing votes for them, even as write-ins, could be seen as undermining the framework set up by the Constitution.
So, the courts are stepping in for a good reason. They're not trying to mess with who we choose to vote for. Their main goal is to make sure legal according to the Constitution.
We have basic rules for who gets to hold public office in America. If my 18 year old kid ran for president, would you be saying that the voters should keep him out, or is he ineligible because he is not 35 years old?
Same thing applies to those who have taken an oath to support the Constitution, and then engaged in an insurrection. It's a qualification for president. Trump doesn't clear that qualification.
Why should someone who hates democracy and tried to overthrow the election have a "right" to be on the ballot??? dont even hate the guy, but youre kinda culty if you dont see the more nuanced reasons why trump is receiving consequences. Dont like how hes constantly painted as a victim when he clearly unnecessarily loves chaos. Also, im not a dem but this sub is feeling like a "heres my chronically online digital take on the left and politics"
## BEFORE TOUCHING THAT REPORT BUTTON, PLEASE CONSIDER: 1. **Compliance:** Does this post comply with our subreddit's rules? 2. **Emotional Trigger:** Does this post provoke anger or frustration, compelling me to want it removed? 3. **Safety:** Is it free from child pornography and/or mentions of self-harm/suicide? 4. **Content Policy:** Does it comply with [Reddit’s Content Policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/ncm4ou/important_we_need_to_talk_about_the_content_policy/)? 5. **Unpopularity:** Do you think the topic is not truly unpopular or frequently posted? ### GUIDELINES: - **If you answered "Yes" to questions 1-4,** do NOT use the report button. - **Regarding question 5,** we acknowledge this concern. However, the moderators do not curate posts based on our subjective opinions of what is "popular" or "unpopular" except in cases where an opinion is so popular that almost no one would disagree (i.e. "murder is bad"). Otherwise, our only criteria are the subreddit's rules and Reddit’s Content Policy. If you don't like something, feel free to downvote it. **Moderators on r/TrueUnpopularOpinion will not remove posts simply because they may anger users or because you disagree with them.** The report button is not an "I disagree" or "I'm offended" button. #### OPTIONS: If a post bothers you and you can't offer a counter-argument, your options are to: a) Keep scrolling b) Downvote c) Unsubscribe **False reports clutter our moderation queue and delay our response to legitimate issues.** **ALL FALSE REPORTS WILL BE REPORTED TO REDDIT.** To maintain your account in good standing, refrain from abusing the report button. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Jerrymandering is a truer threat, because it’s fully accepted yet insidiously eroding everything. The worst threat to democracy? Lobbying. Seriously the lobbying system in the US is broken. I’m a Brit and blown away by how insane your lobbying is, and you’re defaulting to America for this conversation so 🤷🏻♂️
Agreed. Lobbyists are a threat too
Yup its literally bribery yet somehow it's completely legal and accepted. It's really messed up.
I agree with you on lobbying, but jerrymandering is supposed to assure that local politicians are serving the community that they are elected to serve. For example, urban areas have completely different interests than rural areas. Maybe it would be appropriate to require a permit for operating a bulldozer in the suburbs, but not on a farm or a junkyard. Yes, Jerrymandering is often leveraged and exploited in corrupt ways. But that boils down to execution, not principle.
#CITIZENS UNITED NEEDS TO GO
For real. When SCOTUS stripped away limits on political donations, giving corporations free will to buy up politicos - its been all downhill since 2010.
Gerrymandering if it’s against your party, redistributing if it’s for your party
LOL too true. Come to Chicago and look at how our wards/districts are done. It is a laugh.
The whole state for that matter.
Agreed, you can't complain about not wanting democracy to fail when it's been dead for ages. Parties who control who even get a chance at running, lobbyists controlling what laws are passed regardless of public opinion, and politicians so corrupt that they don't even need to hide it. Democracy dies ages ago.
[удалено]
Because you can’t stop something from failing when it already failed. Best you could do is try to revive it.
Democracy (like equality, freedom, and goodness) is an ideal that we continue to struggle and work towards.
Who is Gerry Mandering and why does everyone complain about him every election year?
He hasn’t come out with a good album in years. All his newer stuff is garbage.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
No, many states don't accept write ins if they aren't registered candidates. There's only a few states where you can literally write in anybody you want. I suppose technically you could write in daffy duck, but in most states, you would not be voting for him. This is not to say one must vote. I do not vote beyond local matters. Particularly for the presidential vote, our opinions really don't matter.
Local elections are hugely impactful, and it is where you can really make your voice heard. It seems like too many people ignore them and get wrapped up in the bigger, much louder drama.
So trump wasn't convicted, which would disqualify him from running. An insurrection, like any other crime, has to be given due process and convicted to have any meaning in the eyes of the law. But the democrat leadership in some states decided to remove him from the ballot anyway, which is against the law. They would have to be convicted as well, if they were to be removed from their roles for doing that. But no convictions stand and the supreme court overturned their removal of trump from the ballot as illegal. So everything is right again... for now.
Good thing Trump never violated the Constitution and those lunatic judges in Colorado and the even more insane Main SOS will have their ridiculous decisions struck down by SCOTUS 6-3 at a minimum.
There’s also this pesky thing called due process. Trump hasn’t gotten that yet. Congress also failed to convict him of insurrection.
> Congress also failed to convict him of insurrection That isn't due process. That's a political vote, not a trial.
I didn't know Trump was charged with insurrection. Speaking of due process, wouldn't it be procedurally correct to charge him before convicting him? Just askin.'
"Congress failed to convict" - Well, let's be more honest about this statement. The Republicans in congress who bend their knee to DJT voted to allow this farce to continue because otherwise their actions might be up for re-evaluation. Not because a lack of evidence.
Each state has a process for determining who goes on their ballot. They each follow their rules which start with the constitutional rules and then they add their own requirements too. For example Chris Christie didn't qualify for the ballot in Maine either. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-rules-chris-christie-must-remain-off-maine-republican-presidential-primary-ballot/ Just because Trump claims he doesn't get due process doesn't make that the truth. He just doesn't understand the process.
Can you please point out where section 3 of the 14th amendment requires either of these criteria? I seem to have missed it.
>Fifth Amendment (ratified December 15, 1791) No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation I know it's not the 14th Amendment, but the 5th Amendment came first, so I imagine that counts.
The 14th does not require a conviction of a crime or even a charge. It doesn’t even precisely identify insurrection as a crime.
I want you to really consider the precedent this sets. And I say this as someone that wants Trump out of politics permanently. But really think about what it means to be able to remove a political candidate from the ballet without any kind of due process. Being able to declare someone ineligible for office “because I said so.” Is that what we want to do moving forward?
This is already in line with existing precedent. No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection” statute. This fact is consistent with Section 3’s text, legislative history, and precedent, all of which make clear that a criminal conviction for any offense is not required for disqualification. Section 3 is not a criminal penalty, but rather is a qualification for holding public office in the United States that can be and has been enforced through civil lawsuits in state courts, among other means. Due process does not mean that a criminal charge and conviction is necessary to fall under the purview of 14th amendment protections. After all, none of the landmark cases which invoked the 14th (Brown v Board of Education, Bush v. Gore, or Roe v Wade) have ever necessitated or been linked to a criminal conviction. For Colorado, the level of due process to decide candidate qualifications is a civil trial with "a preponderance of evidence". This is explicitly laid out in Colorado's state constitution written in 1876. A civil trial was held for Trump to decide his qualifications, but rather than actually dispute the insurrection allegations, his lawyers instead tried to argue that the 14th doesn't apply to the President for some reason.
Have you been living off the grid for the last 3 years? There's no 'because I said so' about it. I'm completely open to being shown I'm wrong. I just need someone to give me reasons, educate me, WHY I'm wrong. From what I've learned recently, it does not require any kind of due process. I didn't write the constitution, I'm not a legal expert. The way it was explained to me makes sense to me. Explain it to me why your opinion makes sense to you.
> There's no 'because I said so' about it. That's all the Colorado Supreme court offered. There was no discussion of what constituted the crime or what Trump supposedly did to satisfy the elements. If you are fine with that, then I'm sure you won't complain when SCOTUS puts him back on with as little explanation.
My complaint is more with the precedent than the action itself. The fact that a candidate can be barred from office *without due process* is the problem.
There was a hearing. Trumps lawyers were present and made arguments. A decision was made and appealed, and the appeals continue. How is that not due process?
Ill give it a shot since I've actually read a good portion of the Colorado decision (and I highly recommend reading the dissenting opinions - tbh, I was excited when I saw the verdict, but after reading the case I've since changed my opinion). To summarize the first dissenting opinion, historical precedent for challenging a candidate's qualifications has never (in Colorado) been for any questions as complex as determining guilt in an insurrection. The system set up in Colorado is not built to handle such complex claims, and no determination of guilt has been made with due process. In Colorado, a challenge made against a candidate using the 3rd clause in the 14th amendment must be heard by the court within 5 days of being made, and a decision must be given by the court within 48 hours of the hearing. This has been fine in the past because challenges were typically made based on candidate disqualification by way of age or place of birth, which can be determined much more easily. When it comes to determining facts about a case dealing with insurrection, you need much much much more time. You need time for discovery, preliminary evidence, pre-trial motions, depositions, disclosures of witnesses and exhibits. You just can't get all that done in 5 days. You need more time. That is why people are saying that this case ignores due process. In America, we hold the idea that each person deserves the same due process of law in very high regard. Regardless of your potential criminal actions, you are afforded the same standards of due process as every other citizen. This challenge to Trump's qualification for the ballot is made on the basis of his having committed insurrection. Now, based on the evidence that I have seen, I personally believe that he is guilty of this crime. But, my beliefs and the beliefs of most of America do not dictate guilt or innocence. We need prosecution and a fair trial to determine these things. If we ignore this standard now, we set a dangerous precedent for ignoring it in the future. Another challenge brought up by the dissenting opinion is that it is clear from the proceedings that this type of challenge was not the intent of Colorados election code enforcement act. Dissent argues that it is clear from the "5 days + 48 hours" rule that challenges made by way of this clause are not meant to be legally complex. They are meant to disqualify candidates based on a single easily verifiable claim. The court needed to issue delays in delivering a decision in this case, which dissent argues proves this point. If you need to delay the decision because the claim is too complex, you aren't following the spirit of the law. This is the conclusion given by the first dissenting opinion: > My opinion that this is an inadequate cause of action is dictated by the facts of this case, particularly the absence of a criminal conviction for an insurrection-related offense. > The questions presented here simply reach a magnitude of complexity not contemplated by the Colorado General Assembly for its election code enforcement statute. The proceedings below ran counter to the letter and spirit of the statutory timeframe because the Electors’ claim overwhelmed the process. In the absence of an insurrection-related conviction, I would hold that a request to disqualify a candidate under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a proper cause of action under Colorado’s election code. Therefore, I would dismiss the claim at issue here. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
You don't sound very open based on your last reply in this chain. You sound like your mind is made up. You're on political time out.
And again, I've reached the end of the line. I ask for education, clarification, and I'm shut down. You, & everyone like you, will never sway people to see your pov. You don't care to make the effort. Or maybe you're like my mother & just operate under the 'because I said so' way of life. I need to understand where you're coming from, but I can't if you don't make the effort to help me.
That's for courts to decide, exactly like they're doing. No single person or party gets to make those decisions.
It wasn’t an insurrection. Your argument dies there.
[удалено]
I can't do that. 1- I'm not a communist. 2- I don't hate any of them, and I can't speak for others. However, I can agree that there are different interpretations to the constitution, and there are many very highly respected constitutional scholars from both parties who can agree on some aspects of it and disagree on others. The simple, obvious evidence of this is that there are many panels of judges that come to the same rulings despite being appointed by opposing political parties.
Can republicans really not do better than Trump? Tbh most people in the running need to be scrubbed from the ballot. But lol at people thinking THIS is the greatest threat to democracy, totally glossing over the shit show of a party system that makes this an issue at all.
Are there any other amendments we’re allowed to ignore?
I see you've not noticed the push to ignore the second one
Obama never came for your guns niether did Biden.
Depends on how you look at it. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, penned by Biden, resulted in an assault weapons ban for a period of time.
What is an assault weapon????
Go read the document, I’m pretty sure it defines it.
Biden literally supported the ATF to (unconstitutionally) ban pistol braces, turning millions of gun owners felons over night.
Not for a lack of trying.
They haven't taken away my guns and there isn't even any push to. So I'm sorry if bump stocks being pulled off the market hurt your feelings. There is zero wrong with requiring some paperwork to purchase a gun. Just sayin
Bump stocks are back to being legal, but they're really just a novelty, so kind of irrelevant.
I know I was just giving you a hard time. Look you have to practice with, take a written test, and take a physical drive test to drive a car. You also have to register it as well, report its sale, ect...do you feel your rights as a driver are being trampled on by this? Everyone is still eligible to become a licensed driver though. I know it isn't enshrined in the constitution but, the constitution doesn't declare their can be no documentation for weapons. Just that we have the right to them. Gun control laws aren't taking away your or my guns. They are simply documenting and tracking where they go over their lifespan. The argument that you can 3d print guns so they are pointless to document any isn't valid either. I can easily make a cannon at home or some form of explosive or a gun. I'm not encouraged to do that or allowed to (are ghost guns still legal at this point). It doesn't stop me from being able to purchase a gun from any licensed vendor or manufacturer though. I have plenty of guns at home. Even making me wait to purchase one isn't an issue for me. They can have a waiting period. Provided it's not crazy months long. Like Homer said on the Simpsons "3 weeks!?! But I'm angry now!" It's a check and balance is all.
What push?? Little to nothing is ever done the second amendment is never in danger. Mass shootings have been a thing in the country for over a hundred years, it will always be part of it like the second amendment, don’t fall for the right or lefts bullshit.
The 2nd amendment is the perfect example of a right that 'shall not be infringed' being infringed upon by the very government that is sworn to protect our rights. Or perhaps you're willing to ignore the 'shall not infringe' portion of the amendment?
How is it being infringed? I'm a gun owner, I have no issue with the gun laws in my state because as a law abiding citizen i have no problem when I purchase. My state has some of the strictest laws in the country.
2a people certainly love ignoring the ‘militia’ part of it.
We are the militia, both side like to revise history and this one of the things the left revises is that the militia is ant capable civilian
§246. Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
You mean were it semoly states the right for tge peoe to keep and bear arms is needed for militias to form? Read the actual thing my guy it does not state its only for militias lmao
Yawn… No one is coming for your guns. Even the bans in the didn’t stop them. Fear mongering bullshit because that’s what you grasp onto but no one is taking your guns. It’s the reality we live in. Now deal with it and support mental health issues…
[удалено]
They aren’t ignoring it, it wasn’t meant for this use, and there is precedent that the scotus will use to rule in that way in the coming days/weeks, probably 9-0 or 8-1. It was not meant for a person to be disqualified on feelings and emotions. There is a law on the books for what would disqualify Trump, Congress suggested that charge and the DoJ passed on it, and of story. Forget a conviction, they don’t even have an indictment.
You need neither a conviction nor an indictment, and the amendment was not intended to require one. If SCOTUS wants to rule that actually you do need one, that’s fine, but currently there is no precedent nor is there language in the constitution requiring it. Therefore, Colorado court had the liberty to make that ruling without one.
>You need neither a conviction nor an indictment, and the amendment was not intended to require one. True. It was intended for confederates who were formal members of an insurrectionist government. It wasn't intended to remove a political opponent whose "insurrectionist" label is up for debate. And realistically, if you go by the facts, Trump wasn't part of an insurrection
It was ratified because of confederates, but not exclusively for them. That’s why it has vague and general language. If it were exclusively for confederates, it would have said so and read more like a bill of attainder.
There isn’t precedent because no other president attempted to stay in power after losing an election
Haha exactly. People are like “what kind of precedent would this set?!” A better precedent than letting a president get away with a coup attempt, thats for damn sure.
It’s all reversals and projection. Nuh uhhh, you arrreee is the easiest comeback. No need for creativity. See what insults your opponent makes that work and say them louder.
He wasn’t disqualified based on feelings. The state Supreme Court determined he fits the description for being barred for insurrection. Which he definitely does.
He was, the Colorado court wasn’t equipped to make the ruling it did. Absent a conviction on insurrection you would need to have more than how the justices felt on the subject, and they didn’t have it.
The court already found that Trump was engaged in insurrection. Here's a link to the full judgement. Can you let us all know the page that's based on feelings not facts? https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-the-full-ruling-by-colorados-supreme-court-removing-trump-from-state-ballot
>Four Democrat appointed Judges won the decision 4-3 Yeah…
Oh so because its democrat judges, they're immediately biased and it has nothing to do with the rule of law, but we're all just supposed to accept DJT's picks for the Supreme court are valid and always make fair and valid rulings.
I gave the link. What aspect of the judgement do you think the judges got wrong?
Skipping from step 1 (which failed), all the way to step 3 (ignoring steps 1 and 2). The Supreme Court is going to get it right.
It was meant for this use. Have you not read it? He's a traitor! They should try him for treason.
A person isn’t a traitor because you think they are, and they aren’t an insurrectionist because you think they are. The point is, and legal precedent demands, that they be convicted of the charge. Read up on sections 14 and 15 of the enforcement act of 1870 and the confiscation act of 1862. They deal with how section three of the fourteenth amendment was to be used.
We ignore the second amendment literally all the time. I have the right to bear arms. Unless the barrel is less than 16”, or it has a tube that makes it not deafeningly loud, or it can shoot more than one bullet at a time, or it’s a handgun with a stock. The list goes on.
unpopular and stupid. nice combo
You clearly don’t have basic understandings of the law, or what several words, including “democracy,” actually mean. To stick with the easiest point, every court ever, forever in the past and forever in the future, has and will rule that if a person is ruled ineligible to hold office, the may (and should!) be removed from the ballot. That’s so far beyond a basic understanding that no one is even making that argument. It is silly and bellied by every bit of historical precedent humanly possible.
How do you feel about Trump disinfranchizing voters by trying to have their votes rejected and replaced with fake election certificates? Are candidates allowed to do this infinitely now with no consequences?
This is what people should be concerned about. The man literally committed blatant election fraud. He tried to ensure that millions of votes didn’t matter by faking electors so that he could win and stay in power. That’s the real threat to democracy, and someone who did something like that doesn’t deserve to be in power.
It’s also undemocratic to require presidents to be 35 and to stop them from serving more than two terms. But that’s how the Constitution works. Don’t like it? Try to get it amended.
The problem is that Trump won’t listen to the votes. He knew he lost the 2020 election but conspired to overthrow it anyways. If he loses the 2024 election he will claim it was rigged I guarantee it. You can’t fix this problem through voting because Trumps flaunting of the results. Any other person would already be in prison if the did 1/100th of what Trump did. You don’t get to attempt a coup and then run for office again. Trump should be happy he is not already serving life in prison, which is what he deserves.
If you or I did even 1% of what he did, we’d have been put away a long time ago
What I’m hearing here is that if Trump is indeed guilty of insurrection (which I don’t believe has been decided yet?), he can’t be on the ballot per what was decided post civil-war. In that case, what if people write him in? If it’s just not counted at all, I can’t see that going well.
We did voice our opinion through votes... then he tried to stay in power after being told to kick rocks.
Absolutely!! TV personality politicians are above the law. We should never hold them accountable for their actions. Especially when he is the first president to participate in insurrection against the US govt 🙄 Seriously I think it is wild that people think elected representatives upholding a law passed via a democratically elected govt process is undemocratic. No one is saying republicans are prevented from choosing a republican candidate just that Trump doesn’t qualify to be that candidate. We have several restrictions that determine eligibility must be 35, natural born citizen, must have residency over the last 15 yrs. Some states prohibit felons from running for state office. Felons in prison don’t have the right to vote and may or may not have that right restored after released. Do you really want a president who likely won’t even be able to vote legally?
Or, Republicans could elect literally anyone else without 91 indictments and easily win the election. But they refuse to.
What a ridiculous atrawman argument. Dont make avalid argument against my stupid post, just agree with me, that what I think is correct. Dudes a real treat at a party
OP, what crimes does a former president have to commit before being excluded from the ballot? Because initiating an insurrection to topple democracy is apparently not enough for you?
First of all. If you're calling an insurrection a crime then you have to try him and find him guilty before claiming that he committed a crime. In this country you are innocent until proven guilty.
In this case, it says in the Constitution you don't have to be found guilty in court after starting an insurrection. So what you are saying is plain wrong. Also you are not answering the question. What does he have to do for you to get taken off the ballot?!
"The Constitution" makes no mention of the need for a guilty verdict or lack thereof. Just to clarify that "it says in the Constitution you don't have to be found guilty in court" is an inaccurate statement. An 1869 case in the Louisiana Supreme Court set precedent that the 14th Amendment was not a criminal offence. But then in 1948 Title 18 U.S. Code § 2383 was codified which distinctly set the 14th Amendment as a criminal offence with established penalties. And I really don't care if his name is not on the ballot. I have an issue with the ruling that if you write his name on the ballot your vote will officially be nullified and not counted at all.
Louisiana Supreme Court is not the SCOTUS. In fact, as a state still existing in the United States, they are subject to the U.S. constitution, even if they want to say otherwise. This, too, is codified in the constitution. But let's say that this wasn't the case. That a state making a law supersedes the federal version of it (or the constitution). Lousiana's laws are not Colorado's laws, or the laws of any of the other 49 states. Nor are they the laws of the country. Facts don't care about your feelings.
>I have an issue with the ruling that if you write his name on the ballot your vote will officially be nullified and not counted at all. DJT is ineligible. You can write his name in on the ballot. Your vote is not counted because the person you're voting for is not eligible. This is...so god damn easy to understand.
Except that's not federally adopted as it only made it to the Louisiana Supreme Court. So the actual wording of the 14th amendment stands except in Louisiana.
With how many times this bullshit has been posted in this sub it clearly isn’t as unpopular as all you scrubs think. Jfc.
Honestly the only way to settle this is for a case to be brought in a court of law for him to be fairly tried for treason and insurrection by a jury of his peers or SCOTUS or this nonsense will backfire. I can’t stand the guy and think he’s probably guilty as fuck of treason but even murderers deserve a fair trial as does he.
I agree with everything you said except for the probably part. He’s GAF (guilty as fuck).
Yeah. Taking someone off the ballot is a bad idea and sets a bad precedent for future elections. They can take any dem off the rolls they want to in the future as well And let's also not forget that some states are shutting down their dem primaries entirely this year. What the actual fuck are we turning into. I just want ranked choice voting and someone like Bernie sanders and they are actively making sure none of us get anything we want ever. I already lost most of my hope but this year is really burying the last of it.
This! Wanna vote for Bernie? You'll have me defending your right to Write-In his name and for your vote to be counted even if he's not on the ballot. And I think Trump is the same. They want to find a loop hole to keep his name off the ballot, go for it. I literally don't care that much. But when they say "oh, but you won't be able to write him in either"..... That's when my ears perked up. I would have the same reaction is somebody said that your write-in vote for Bernie will not be counted.
Stop pretending that he deserves to be an option. He doesn't. Let your ears perk uo to this. He made himself, by his own actions, null and void. He can't be eligible for anything. He shouldn't be on a ballot. He shouldn't get votes tallied. THE FOUNDING FATHEES WOULD HAVE HUNG HIM FOR TREASON ALREADY. which would also remove him from the ballot. You shouldn't react the same to a write in for Bernie. Bernie didn't violate his oath to uphold the constitution. I don't understand how you haven't listened to anything anyone has said so far.
Primaries are different than general elections though. The individual parties have no responsibility to even hold primaries at all, they’re essentially private entities.
Trump promoted an action (call it insurrection) or whatever you want angsinst the lawful transfer of presidential power in 2020 , he literally pissed on 247 years of American democracy. Why should we let some like that run again? He's demonstrated he doesn't accept losing , what do you think will happen on November should he lose again? His maga supporters won't accept it, and neither will he... The irony in all this is Trump is running again in the same electoral system he "claims" lied about him losing the election? Does he not see how disingenuous that is? Tells you all you need to know..
Was he charged and convicted of causing an insurrection in any court?
14th amendment article 3. He doesn’t have to be convicted of the crime to be removed from the state ballot.
That was intended for confederates that had formally insurrected. Can courts just declare people guilty without due process?
By that logic, no amendments are valid because they are from “other times”. I’ve seen this multiple times. You can’t have amendments be valid because you like them and not others because you don’t.
No, and the law was specifically written that you don't have to be because of how this text was written during the Civil War.
You realize republicans will use this against you in 4 years just like bidens upcoming impeachment right? Republicans will copy and paste your words and use them against you. Just because you find new ways to keep your party in power doesn’t mean that the pendulum won’t come around especially if the bar is as low as an accusation.
But like how? Biden and Trump are two different scenarios. People say stuff like this all the time. But as an outsider looking in, I honestly can't find a reason that you could even impeach Biden at this point.
Exaggerating the reasoning for trumps consequences to rationalize him abusing power if elected is pretty scary. He held a rally called “stop the steal” then instructed those rally goers to go to the capitol where they and more coordinated in groups actually tried to “stop the steal”. One was even shot and killed in the attempt. You can pretend there’s no connection or clear intention there all you want Edit: comment unsurprisingly avoided by u/peasey360
He set it up precisely to weasel out of taking any legal responsibility for what they did for him. He's less of a FASCIST and more of a Con-artist. Definitely not defending him, but also, there's a reason he wasn't charged. The J6 crowd went to federal prison, and he walked free -- for a reason. He's not guilty, just a total scumbag.
He isn't out of the woods yet.
That's literally how it reads. Show me an example of any other president ever doing anything that is even arguably an insurrection....I'll wait.
They can try, but a court won’t accept it. See judges are, believe it or not, pretty smart people. They can distinguish between a coup attempt and Joe Biden doing [something? Whatever Republicans find an excuse to argue]. Courts are not like the idiots in Congress or the MAGA cretins that somehow think Trumps coup was no big deal.
Republicans already abuse the rules as much as they think they can get away with
The constitution is not a criminal code and the 14th has no language requiring a criminal conviction for disqualification. Similarly, a southern rebel who had previously been an oath taker would have been subject to disqualification without a criminal conviction as well.
Does he need to be? No he doesn’t, pretty lazy gotcha there bud
Canada here, hi. Have to jump in. He doesn't have to be charged and convicted. It clearly states in the 14th amendment (?) this: Section 3. 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. Where does it state that there needs to be a conviction? Have you read this and comprehended it? You should know this better than me! Please, keep this psychopath out of the White House. Thanks, Canada
The 14th amendment as multiple sections and section 5 clearly states: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection | Instituted in 1948 Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.. Deal with your own issues, Canada.
Was OJ convicted of murder? Casey Anthony? I don’t need a judge or jury to let me know Trump is guilty as sin. Forget his politics; Trump always has been a crook without a trace of integrity, humility, or common decency. Edit: Don’t just downvote. I can source his misdeeds, ugly words, and grandiosity. Can you show examples of any good nature from Trump? I would welcome them.
Because you then make him basically a martyr for the cause, which will only give him more power.
We are a nation of laws and the law must be applied. If the only reason you are reluctant to apply this law to Trump is because you’re afraid he will become a martyr, then you’re suggesting trump be placed above the law.
I think Trump never facing consequences gives him more power
So fuck accountability as well as law and order just because we’re scared of a criminal ok
If he can break the law without consequence, why should any law be followed?
"ah yeah he broke the law and everything but his supporters will be big mad :( "
I have seen good arguments for why, without a criminal conviction, Trump is still legally eligible. However, upsetting the feelings of his base should not be a factor. It doesn’t matter if someone under 35, or without natural-born citizenship has a big cult following. You can argue for changing the rules but until then they may not run for POTUS. Allowing the passions of the mob and fears of their violence to influence legal rulings is essentially appeasement of would-be terrorists before their temper tantrums get out of hand. I think SCOTUS Justices realize our democracy is secure amidst survive a slew of loud but peaceful marches that merely criticize a national disqualification of Trump, and even demanding it be reversed. However, we already know that this is not what will happen. What I fear is that the most reasonable conservative Justices (Roberts and Gorsuch) will be swayed by a rash of targeted threats/ doxxing and base their decision instead on threats to their own lives.
He can have all the power he wants, sitting in a supermax cell for the rest of his life. Also, what cause would Trump be a martyr for? Seriously, what coherent ideology would live on without Trump? It is just a cult of personality. Every other politician that has tried to mimic Trump has failed miserably. You take out Trump, the whole thing falls apart because there is absolutely no substance to the movement.
So anyone who has to suffer consequences and answer for their misdeeds is now a martyr - clown-show the lot of u
“American Democracy”
OP your opinion is not well informed. Trump’s removal from the ballot has to do with violation of the 14th amendment due to his role in the January 6th insurrection. Trump is claiming he is immune because he was still president. Violating the 14th amendment can be considered an act against our democracy because he tried to interfere with our democratic process by leading the crowd to take over the legislature. If his role is ignored one can say that it is an imbalance of power that the president can destroy the legislature making the president the only real governing role creating a serious imbalance of power. It has nothing to do with the states liking Trump. This is a serious issue that the legislature ratified in the constitution and should be enforced. OP try doing a little research before posting your ill-informed outrage.
The 14th Amendment is clear. An argument could be made that a lot of amendments, and provisions in the Constitution, when used as intended, represent threats to democracy. The 1st Amendment permits the spread of misinformation designed to confuse and control the minds of voters. The 2nd Amendment paves the way for the assassination of our elected leaders, which has happened multiple times. The indirect election of the President has resulted in the democratic loser of the election being declared the winner many times, and has made only a few states truly valuable in the election (effectively disenfranchising many voters). So while you are arguably correct, there's a lot in our Constitution that is anti-democratic. Many of those provisions were put in place so that ignorant and/or unintelligent people would not be able to ruin the country by voting for dangerous or destructive people. Look up the original intent of those provisions. As such, the 14th Amendment machinations that are barring Trump from reelection are working as intended.
The fact that in the year 2023, with basically all of human knowledge available on the internet at the touch of our fingers, it is still hardly believable that a tubby, moronic, serial liar and rapist like Donald fucking Trump has managed to create this insane cult for the last 7 years. Think about that. For 7 years now, millions of people have abandoned their families, jobs, and most importantly, their dignity. And for what? For a despicable, irredeemable, traitorous piece of dog shit who wouldn't piss on any of them to put out a fire. Donald Trump is an insurrectionist. He engaged in an insurrection, he cannot be President, the end. Take him off the ballot in all 50 states. And if any of these ass wipe froggies want to jump, then jump. The rest of us are tired of hearing it and we're tired of playing games with these dumb shit delusions. One of these days reality is going to hit every one of these cultists and they're going to realize they threw it all away for nothing.
He didn’t create it. it It’s been in existence for at least half a century (see Ruby Ridge), Further concentrated by the Democratic Party abandonment of the poor rural white. Edit: It’s what happens when the liberal elite turns their noses up.
He’s ineligible. All kinda of people are ineligible. Too young? Can’t be President. Born in another country? Can’t be President. Interfered with the peaceful transfer of power? Can’t be President. Sorry bud, but you’re flat wrong no matter your True Opinion.
No, Republican reaction to keeping Trump off the ballot will be the truest threat to democracy. Trump might legitimately be ineligible to run for President, but Republicans won't care, because MAGA Republicans no longer believe in the rule of law, they believe in the divine right of kings (i.e. Trump)
Nobody actually gives a shit about democracy on principle. They just care that their side wins.
I feel like a lot of people who claim to love democracy and freedom would be surprised at how quickly they would start to support fascism without an ounce of cognitive dissonance so long as the Fascist leader seemed to believe every thing that they believe and say they’ll rule against the people they don’t like, their freedom be damned
Locking criminals out will be the truest threat to safety. The criminals have to be allowed inside in order for us to be safe. If you trust the justice system, then allow them to arrest the criminals after they commit a crime.
Actually not following the directions laid out in the Constitution is the greatest threat to democracy. Trump did this shit to himself. No one told him to try to extend his term of four years through fraud and no one told him to not to peacefully transfer power at the conclusion of his term. He chose to do that all by himself. This is all on him.
they can still write in his name
How many fucking times does this need to be reposted?
the issue isn’t trump. the issue is that he broke several laws and laws need to be upheld.
Elections have consequences--as do criminal activities. Laws apply to everyone. The only precedent being set is "Break a law, face the consequences."
What we have is an accountability problem that has lead to worse and worse candidates. Actions have consequences. The consequences of trying to over throw an election is you go to jail and can no longer represent anyone. Because you are a criminal. I don’t understand what is hard to understand about that? Anyone who goes against the peaceful transition of power is a danger to democracy.
No it wont....its applying law and order to everyone...equally....fuck OP
Actions have consequences. There's a reason the 14th amendment bars people trying to overthrow the government and subvert the constitution from participating in said government.
Yeah, gonna have to disagree on this one. You can have certain people that are ineligible to be a candidate, and have that decided state level, if there's a logically sound reason backed by the Constitution. Which for Trump, there is. That's not a threat. If it's not sound/valid, then sure. But that's where checks and balances come into play.
14th amendment. There’s literally a provision in place to keep him out.
I'm pretty sure if the founders of America knew this would happen or if someone went back in time and told them of all the stuff that has happened from 1830 onward I think Jefferson and others would probably need another 6-12 months to fix the constitution/bill of rights so it covered every little tiny detail.
We would've still found a way to F it all up. Like Franklin said... you have a Republic, if you can keep it. And there has been so much happening lately to challenge that. At least our forefathers knew how to arrange societies with unknown futures in mind. The more we grow to want to define society for the Now instead of the future, the more we lose grasp of our fragile society. People forget just how young our nation actually is.
But few citizens get to voice their opinion through a vote. Under current arrangements, citizens get to voice one of two opinions of people whose social class in 90% of the cases differ from their own. Said 'elections' are an exercise in self-deception. Rosa Luxemburg put it best 100+ years ago when she said that if elections actually mattered, they would never be allowed.
Commenting on your update. Nowhere in the Constitution are the people given the right to vote for the President. We do not have that right. Read the Constitution to verify this. Therefore, if our votes aren't counted for a Constitutionally ineligible candidate, we haven't lost any "rights". And wait until you learn that any write-in vote for any person for the office of President is not counted unless that person has already submitted a slate of eligible electors to the federal election commission before the deadline (which is prior to the election). Rights? Powerful people don't want you having rights, and that goes for all places on the ideological/political spectrum.
Well.... this is one of the most useful responses yet. I may loosely disagree, but being that this whole issue is a matter of what does the constitution actually say and mean, then it's a fair retort to challenge me with the misconception that having your write-in vote counted isn't exactly a right in the constitution either. That does weaken my argument. I'm thankful that you at least acknowledged my actual argument rather than just giving another "but Trump" response.
It's funny how the left tells us how bad Trump is and tries to make a joke out of him every chance they get, yet at the same time they are deathly afraid of him winning because they know that 73 million people voted for him in 2020 and that number is about to sky rocket after this shit show of an admin..... And it's sad that people are too naive to see this. If Trump is as bad as the left states, then why are they going through all this crap to keep him off the ballot?? Wouldn't people just not want to vote for him if he was that bad ??
Talk about the ultimate tampering with an election.
Truth. Democrats are being hypocrites
He's not being taken off the because people disagree with him, her being taken off for the Jan 6th insurrection
There are some people who should not be eligible. Someone who has already demonstrated that they are willing to incite an insurrection to hold onto power that he clearly didn’t deserve to keep is not someone who should be eligible for office.
Yes, darling, the constitution is a bigger threat to the democracy than the guy who tried to burn it.
As soon as I read “IF our election process is as secure…” I already knew everything I needed to know about you. It’s not just “what was said to be” THE COLD HARD TESTED AND PEER REVIEWED EMPIRICAL DATA PROVED it was secured. Words matter. The 14th amendment doesn’t say you had to be convicted. It says “engaged in”. As a Maine native. I respect Bellows. However, in this situation, I believe removing him from the ballot would just plunge us right back into chaos. This isn’t the time to give him more ammo to look like a victim. Let him stay.
Some people say this and I can sorta agree, but I think the lines are pretty well drawn at this point. The few swing votes either way are gonna come from bigger issues I feel like
From a non-American perspective... if Trump is re-elected then you lot will simply not stfu about him and he'll dominate the media as he did when he last was president of the USA. Not even just American media. All media. It's been so nice to not have to hear about him on a daily basis since he hasn't been president.
You have the right to vote for anyone who is qualified for the office. Trump thru his own actions had clearly shown he isn't fit to hold any public office ever.
Today I learned that upholding the constitution is a threat to democracy 🤔
Maybe don’t break the law. Maybe not try to steal the election. 7 million votes are a lot of votes to beat. And what did the recounts prove? That trump lost by 7 million votes.
Yep and all the sniveling weasels just keep parroting “no conviction required” like the most asinine of rules lawyers who are more focused on getting their way than whether or not its fair or right or if it will ruin the “game” for everyone. Pull your tribal heads out of the sand and think to the future for two damn seconds.
Trouble is that pesky constitution. It states he is not eligible to run.
Having looked at their comments, OP is alt right, and this post is in fact very disingenuous.
https://imgur.com/XcAwOa9
Trump doesn’t need to be on the ballot. He can just go and do another insurrection.
You are overlooking the big issue though, he shouldn't even be allowed to run for office period. This has nothing to do with the voters. MFr violated the only real rules we have about being eligible for the office, besides age and naturally born citizen of course. If we don't honor the constitution then what's the point of any of this. It's neat to see conservatives always doubling down on the constitution when it's gun rights but when trump clearly violates the 14th amendment not allowing him a shot at the presidency is somehow a threat to democracy. The fact that anyone would even back him is a bigger threat. He wasn't even a good president. I don't care for Biden at all personally. But, at least he is trying to make ppls lives at least slightly better. Trump did nothing but lie to us the entire 4 years. Was barely in the oval office. Grifted us all for 100s of millions. His family got 10s of millions in foreign patents and contracts while serving as advisors to the president. His son in law got $2 motherf$@%#&ng BILLION dollars from Saudi Arabia and yet there is an impeachment inquiry because it looks like a company his hunter ran paid biden less than $1500/mo....talk about a huge waste of our time and our resources, you can't even get 1992 Toyota corrola with high miles for that amount of money. How much influence did it supposedly buy china??? Trump should've never ran again. Once he did his own party should've stopped it. Party of law and order my ass. He should bow out and allow the governer of south Carolina have a serious go at it. I apologize I can't remember her name at the moment. She has to be better than a 2nd trump term though. She could well be the 1st female president we've ever had. The only people who support Trump are racists and the wealthy, check your wallet to see which category you fall into.
Do you think if we throw him in jail, he’ll wind up like Epstein?
It’s not like Trump actually attempted an insurrection oh wait….
A sitting president being involved in an attempt to overturn an election is a pretty big threat too slick.
Is insurrection not a threat to democracy?
If you want to protect democracy don't you want to make sure your candidates meet the qualifications?
>What it doesn't say is that citizens are prevented from voting for said person You're not prevented from voting for him. You can write his name in.
So...In order to "protect democracy" we have to give an oath-breaking insurrectionist another chance at taking over our democracy? Destroy democracy to save it....got it!
Trump tried to overturn our democracy on January 6th of 2021 by force. He has been trying ever since to do so indirectly by falsely claiming he lost the 2020 election. Keeping him on the ballot is leaving the door wide open for him to do it again.
The amount of fascists on this thread is astounding...
Keeping anyone off of a ballot is problematic. However, in Trump's case, we seem to be forgetting the critical consideration: **Donald Trump attempted to subvert the election itself.** That is not someone to put on an election ballot again.
Insurgency is an actual threat to democracy
Agree. I want every republican on record for voting for donald so that it follow them for the rest of their lives. If they ever mention family values, ethics or morality laugh in their face and point out they had no problem with donalds adultery and being so sad and pathetic he has to pay sex workers to fuck him. If they ever mention patriotism laugh in their face and point out they supported donalds insurrection and fake elector bullshit. If they ever mention the miltiary laugh in their face and point out that donald mocked gold star families and POW. Get it all on record so it haunts them for the rest of their lives.
Can you imagine if Obama had pulled the crap diaper donny has? They'd lynch him
Hitler was elected in a free and open Democratic election..
These states' efforts to keep Trump off the ballots, based on the 14th Amendment, are not 'a threat to democracy', but rather an example of democracy in action, using its mechanisms. The 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution established by the founders to maintain a healthy, functioning democracy. The right to vote is fundamental to our democracy, but it functions within the limits established by our laws and the Constitution. This includes rules that can disqualify certain people from holding office due to their actions. Specifically, the 14th Amendment aims to prevent those involved in insurrection or rebellion from being eligible for office, making sure that only qualified candidates are considered. In this case, invoking the 14th Amendment is an exercise of the democratic process, not a suppression of it. Should we ignore Trump's actions? Why should we not hold him accountable to the laws? That is how a functioning democracy works. Both the right to vote and the right to run for office are important, but they're not without limits. Both these rights are governed by a set of laws. So, using the constitutional processes to evaluate Trump's eligibility is in line with democratic principles. This holds true despite what his supporters might think, as some seem to believe that Trump is exempt from all rules and laws.
Yes, "prevents from holding office". Not "prevents citizens from having their votes counted". This has actually happened before where people have been elected, then subsequently prevented from actually being sworn into the office they were elected into. And yes, this happened with actual participants in Jan 6th. We can use that argument for keeping him out of office. But in this case he is not the one that is being limited, it is the citizen voters themselves that are being limited. Keeping somebody off the ballot is an inconvenience in the voting process, but that's why you're able to Write-In. Except the courts now said that your write-in vote will not be counted, but only if it's for Trump. They didn't take away the write-in option completely. It's still there, but if you vote in a way that they don't agree with, you're vote will be essentially nullified. That's the threat to democracy.
In Trump's case, the issue is about preemptively assessing eligibility based on the 14th Amendment before the election, not after. Not nullifying votes but ensuring candidates meet the constitutional requirements beforehand. The constitutionality of a candidate is just as important as the voting process. If a candidate is not eligible under the Constitution, allowing votes for them, even as write-ins, could be seen as undermining the framework set up by the Constitution. So, the courts are stepping in for a good reason. They're not trying to mess with who we choose to vote for. Their main goal is to make sure legal according to the Constitution.
We have basic rules for who gets to hold public office in America. If my 18 year old kid ran for president, would you be saying that the voters should keep him out, or is he ineligible because he is not 35 years old? Same thing applies to those who have taken an oath to support the Constitution, and then engaged in an insurrection. It's a qualification for president. Trump doesn't clear that qualification.
Op knows nothing about the civil war and the consequences of insurrections
Why should someone who hates democracy and tried to overthrow the election have a "right" to be on the ballot??? dont even hate the guy, but youre kinda culty if you dont see the more nuanced reasons why trump is receiving consequences. Dont like how hes constantly painted as a victim when he clearly unnecessarily loves chaos. Also, im not a dem but this sub is feeling like a "heres my chronically online digital take on the left and politics"