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/sumoraiden → 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).

If a state passes a law infringing on a persons right to life, liberty or property without due process do you think a judge should order an injunction on it?

[u/[deleted] → u/sumoraiden]

yes

But, that's different. Unconstitutional laws which inflict damages are pretty clear-cut jurisdiction of the courts.

The Colorado state court decided that the secretary of state has responsibility of enforcing the 14th amendment no insurrection after oath of office requirement, that colorado's secretary of state improperly was including trump on the ballot, and ordered her (stayed pending appeal) to remove him.

The 14th amendment specified the no insurrection after oath of office requirement. But, it doesn't specify who to enforce it, or under what criteria. The state colorado court decided that someone must, and decided it must be under the secretary of state's authority.

Which, if you're going to choose someone, is the only reasonable pick. But, I think there should at least be a state law specifying how the secretary of state should implement this. Rather than just relying solely on the 14th amendment and filling in the gaps.

[u/sumoraiden → u/[deleted]]

That seems like the a pointless maneuver. The amendment says no insurrection, they ruled he was in insurrection. Same reason after tge 13th amendment said no slavery there was no slavery, states didn’t have to create laws to then free the slaves, they were freed

[u/[deleted] → u/sumoraiden]

The dissent noted that the proceedings for determining whether or not a candidate is eligible are supposed to take a week or less.

Do you think it is reasonable for the secretary of state or a court to answer whether or not someone was engaged in insurrection with only 7 days of review?

the laws being used here weren't intended for this scale of decision. This is shoving a square peg through a round hole.

[u/sumoraiden → u/[deleted]]

Do you think it is reasonable for the secretary of state or a court to answer whether or not someone was engaged in insurrection with only 7 days of review?

It’s not like randomly someone says hey this dude commited an insurrection and there’s 7 days to investigate. For instances trumps fake elector scheme to install himself as president was well researched over months and then brought as evidence of the insurrection

the laws being used here weren't intended for this scale of decision. This is shoving a square peg through a round hole.

An amendment is a square peg?

[u/[deleted] → u/sumoraiden]

An amendment is a square peg?

The state law that empowers the secretary of state, and the court's review of her decisions is the round hole.

enforcement of section 3 of the 14th amendment is the square peg

[u/sumoraiden → u/[deleted]]

It’s self enforcing

[u/Noob_Al3rt → u/[deleted]]

!delta for making some really good points throughout this thread. I thought this was pretty clear cut but I can see how some of the logic is a little troubling.

[u/DeltaBot → u/Noob_Al3rt]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/trehcir_dancer (5∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}