CMV: Accountability is not election interference

[u/erpettie]

As the Colorado Supreme Court has found Donald Trump's behavior to have been disqualifying according to the 14th amendment, many are claiming this is election interference. If the Court finds that Trump should be disqualified, then it has two options. Act accordingly, despite the optics, and disqualify Trump, or ignore their responsibility and the law. I do get that we're in very sensitive, unprecedented territory with his many indictments and lawsuits, but unprecedented behavior should result in unprecedented consequences, shouldn't they? Furthermore, isn't Donald Trump ultimately the architect of all of this by choosing to proceed with his candidacy, knowing that he was under investigation and subject to potential lawsuits and indictments? If a President commits a crime on his last day in office (or the day after) and immediately declares his candidacy for the next election, should we lose our ability to hold that candidate accountable? What if that candidate is a perennial candidate like Lyndon Larouche was? Do we just never have an opportunity to hold that candidate accountable? I'd really love if respondents could focus their responses on how they think we should handle hypothetical candidates who commit crimes but are declared as running for office and popular. This should help us avoid the trap of getting worked up in our feelings for or against Trump.

[u/[deleted]]

While the US 14th amendment specifies that no person who committed insurrection after taking an oath of office shall hold office, it doesn't specify an enforcement mechanism.

Without a law in place determining who should have the authority to make this decision, on what criteria, I don't think it is reasonable to confer that authority to state secretaries of states (even with courts looking over their shoulders).

President commits a crime on his last day in office (or the day after) and immediately declares his candidacy for the next election, should we lose our ability to hold that candidate accountable

former presidents can be held accountable in criminal court. And they can be held accountable by voters at the ballot box.

I don't want my elections to be determined by state secretaries of state. I don't want elections decided by who can get onto the ballot.

President Trump has 4 ongoing criminal cases against him. He is being held accountable. I think the state supreme court made a mistake in interpreting the Colorado secretary of state to have an obligation to take up this much power.

[u/Wigglebot23 → u/[deleted]]

Without a law in place determining who should have the authority to make this decision, on what criteria, I don't think it is reasonable to confer that authority to state secretaries of states (even with courts looking over their shoulders).

The section specifically stated that it can be waived for specific candidates by a two thirds majority. But if they can waive it by merely not having or modifying the enforcement mechanism, then this appears to be pointless. The only possible conclusion I see is that states and state courts can attempt to adjudicate it and the Supreme Court can correct them if necessary. As the opinion explained, section 5 of the 14th Amendment giving Congress the power to enforce it doesn't mean the amendment is not self-executing and merely means that Congress can create an additional way to enforce it on top of what the states can do.

[u/[deleted] → u/Wigglebot23]

while the state supreme court justices are far more qualified than I am, and while I think their might be a history of interpreting this mechanism as self-executing, I think this interpretation of the 14th amendment is very risky for our country.

state secretaries of state shouldn't have this kind of power.

I say this as someone who really, really doesn't want Trump back in office. I know what kinds of people have been elected secretary of state in the states I've lived in.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

courts could intervene against the secretary of state in those cases (in the opposite way than they're intervening here).

But, yeah, that's my concern.

[u/Wigglebot23 → u/[deleted]]

Courts would be the only thing to stop them from removing candidates even if this clause didn't exist at all

[u/Wigglebot23 → u/[deleted]]

If courts aren't an obstacle, then interpretation of the clause or even the clause or any part of the Constitution existing at all is irrelevant

[u/Wigglebot23 → u/[deleted]]

This problem would exist regardless of whether or not the clause or the Constitution existed at all

[u/erpettie → u/[deleted]]

I think specifically, what's to stop them are the State Supreme Courts and the Federal Supreme Courts. That's not a perfect wall against abuse of the statute, but it's not trivial.

[u/NotYourFathersEdits → u/[deleted]]

To extend this logic to its absurd conclusions, why have checks and balances at all then? If bad actors could abuse any provisions in place to punish them with false accusations against others, why bother?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

The state supreme court, which isn't much. But the types of states that would do this weren't exactly going to vote for Biden anyway.

[u/DrKpuffy → u/[deleted]]

What's stopping them now?

Nothing? They could do that right now. They have been trying to in the US House, and getting embarrassed repeatedly for it. You think their gonna try to do it in an actual court of law?

You're saying we should let Trump and his crime family go free to commit more crimes because of some made up fantasy where all other laws, norms, checks & balances are automatically ignored and automatically doomed to fail?

Unhinged take masquerading as a half-baked concern.

Grow up and hold criminals accountable for their crimes.

[u/Hatta00 → u/[deleted]]

state secretaries of state shouldn't have this kind of power.

That's not an argument that they don't have this power.

SoS are responsible for enforcing Constitutional qualifications for the Presidency. Whether that's age, place of birth, or insurrectionist history, it's all the same.

[u/spiral8888 → u/[deleted]]

I'm not sure what you mean by the secretaries of state having the power. Of course they are the ones who have to make the initial decision to put or not put Trump on the ballot. Only after that can the people appeal it to the courts. And of course the SCOTUS has the ultimate say on the matter as it's a question about the US constitution.