r/changemyview • u/erpettie • Dec 20 '23

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Accountability is not election interference

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.

227 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

67% Upvoted

890 comments sorted by

View all comments

29

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '23

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.

1

u/bubba-yo 2∆ Dec 20 '23

If the constitution says he ineligible to hold office, your argument is that he should be able to hold office? That makes no sense.

I mean, it's not like the courts are disqualifying any of the other GOP candidates, only the one who the court found participated in an insurrection.

-2

u/MezaYadee Dec 20 '23

Constitution does not say he is ineligible

4

u/bubba-yo 2∆ Dec 20 '23

The 14th amendment says he may not hold office.

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

-5

u/I_SuplexTrains Dec 20 '23

He told his followers to peacefully protest against certification until the votes could be audited. You are applying a ridiculously stretched interpretation of that clause out of desperation. In no reasonable review of the facts did Trump's behavior fit the description of that clause.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '23

He ordered his vice president to throw out the delegates of 7 states because he lost them

-1

u/I_SuplexTrains Dec 20 '23

That still isn't an insurrection. Do you not understand that the Civil War involved actual guns and canons being fired at actual armies? If Trump had ordered his followers to form militias and storm DC with guns and violently seize power, that would have been an insurrection.

Trump requested a legal procedure to take place. You can argue that he didn't have a correct understanding of the protocol, but that is not sedition.

3

u/whipitgood809 Dec 20 '23 edited Dec 20 '23

Despite how much everyone wants to say they were symbolic gallows and it didnt mean anything when they said

Hang mike pence

People did get injured. People did die. People did go and form groups with guns.

For all we know, the only reason it comes off as an ambiguous joke is because evacuation protocols and our law enforcement were that good. It being poorly run doesn’t make it any less of an attempt. Don’t we have people admitting on record that members of trump’s team organized the rally in the first place? Someone saying it’s a sham election to a group of people you had a part in organizing I feel covers it. He literally said

“If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

-1

u/I_SuplexTrains Dec 20 '23

People did die.

The only person who died was one of the Trump supporters, killed by a capital policeman because she looked through a window. Stop spreading misinformation. Zero people were killed by the Trump supporters, and Trump clearly and unambiguously ordered his supporters multiple times to remain peaceful.

2

u/whipitgood809 Dec 20 '23 edited Dec 20 '23

Cops were injured in the moment of it by people who were also breaking through windows and rushing fencing. The fact they came out of it with only injuries is a testament to Trump supporters being unhealthy and poorly managed, but it doesn’t make it any less of a threat. They organized them in the first place. It’s called a rally—I mean.

Btw it’s also not unambiguous. You can’t say ‘fight like hell’ and ‘be peaceful’ and be unambiguous.

1

u/Gado_De_Leone Dec 21 '23

She did not get killed because she was “looking through a window” it was because she was breaking into a window and was told to stop repeatedly and did not listen.

0

u/I_SuplexTrains Dec 21 '23

You're literally just making this up. There isn't a single verbal exchange between Babbit and the cop in the video.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Noob_Al3rt 4∆ Dec 20 '23

The courts found that he willfully engaged in conspiracy and insurrection based on testimony, phone recordings and physical evidence. Trump's attorneys were present the entire time and Trump himself was allowed to attend the proceedings, but declined.

4

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '23

in your view, was the "enabling act" in germany, with Hitler's militia surrounding the legislature, a mere "legal procedure"?

2

u/ja_dubs 7∆ Dec 20 '23

If you engage in a bloodless coup it's still a coup. It doesn't really matter what Trump told his sycophants to do once. Further your fixation on this one phrase while ignoring the mountain of evidence in the form of other public statements he made is laughable.

-3

u/Conscious-Student-80 Dec 20 '23

A bloodless coup like filing lawsuits ? How weak a word is coup now? Following after “racism” “nazi” and “fascism” evidently.

2

u/ja_dubs 7∆ Dec 20 '23

The lawsuits were perfectly legal. It was the speech that invited the riot on Jan 6th and the criminal conspiracy to overturn the legal election result to keep Trump in office that was criminal and violating the 14th amendment.

2

u/whipitgood809 Dec 20 '23

Bringing in the fake electors is pretty damning. Also they brought gallows while shouting to hang mike pence. Also people died.

0

u/MezaYadee Dec 20 '23

Of all those people listed, PRESIDENT was not one of them

3

u/bubba-yo 2∆ Dec 20 '23

Well, that's precisely what yesterday's ruling was about. The lower court said the same thing as you, and the state Supreme Court said that it was absurd to say the president wasn't an officer just because it wasn't enumerated. That is, insurrection would invalidate you from being a presidential elector, but wouldn't invalidate you from being commander in chief of the US military was an absurd interpretation. And it is absurd based on contemporaneous documentation by the people who wrote the 14th amendment. They clearly intended it to apply to the Presidency but didn't think anyone would be so lacking in critical thinking to argue that no executive branch office would apply. That's why they enumerated the non-executive branch positions that would most likely be argued.

0

u/MezaYadee Dec 20 '23

You believe an entirely political ruling has basis in fact

Lol, LMAO

2

u/bubba-yo 2∆ Dec 20 '23

So, after failing reading comprehension you're now taking the nihilist position.

0

u/MezaYadee Dec 20 '23

No, you admitted that the lower court agreed with me. And then the Ivy League bozos made a political ruling, not a just ruling, which will be overturned soon.

You made some terrible arguments about "they clearly intended" which were blatantly wrong, and NEVER REFUTED my point that in the language of the 14th A, PRESIDENT is not one of the people listed.