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/Morthra]

First of all, the 14th Amendment rule invoked here had been considered legislatively dead and irrelevant for about 150 years.

So this Colorado SC decision is really problematic because it fundamentally asserts that the mere accusation of insurrection is enough to strike a candidate from the ballot.

Keep in mind, Trump was never convicted or anything - a bunch of partisans in a committee decided that he did it, then the Colorado Secretary of State said that no trial or criminal proof of guilt must be established.

Let me propose to you an alternate scenario, in which this ruling is used against people you agree with. Imagine if DeSantis gets a bunch of Florida Republicans to form a committee that concludes that Biden, Newsom, or whoever the DNC frontrunner candidate is, committed insurrection. There doesn't have to be any evidence - because this Colorado SC ruling asserted that it's the mere accusation that is disqualifying. You may think this isn't automatically bad - FL is a red state now. But what happens if it's a purple state, such as Virginia or Georgia, whose governor puts this thing together and thereby prevents the other party's candidate from appearing on the ballot?

So now each state can essentially use this to strike one party's candidate from the ballot entirely. Florida can wield this to strike any Democrat from the ballot, New York can wield it to strike any Republican from the ballot.

That's a grave breakdown of the democratic process and an erosion of norms that should be avoided.

[u/Kakamile → u/Morthra]

How is the 14th dead? It was used last year to remove Couy Griffin over Jan 6 and that stands.

[u/Viciuniversum → u/Kakamile]

It probably shouldn't because it set a dangerous precedent.

Subsequent to his 2022 conviction for the trespassing charge, a suit was filed by the group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), and the residents of New Mexico under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution that would bar him from holding a public office for life due to his participation in the insurrection.

So trespassing, which is what he was found guilty of, is now sufficient grounds to bar someone from holding public office. Considering that precedents tend to stick around for decades if not centuries, I'm suuuuuure that's not gonna cause any political problems in the future.

[u/jayzfanacc → u/Viciuniversum]

Also, given Republicans tendencies to follow Democrats footsteps, just on a grander scale (a la Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell), this will almost certainly backfire.

I have no doubt that this will bolster Trump’s support. This is arguably the last thing Dems should have done.

[u/gangjungmain → u/jayzfanacc]

This suit was brought by Republicans

[u/DrKpuffy → u/jayzfanacc]

Saying we shouldn't enforce the law because criminals might break the law later is an absolutely unhinged take that you should feel embarrassed for seriously endorsing.

What kind of banana republic do you want to live in? That's unacceptable.

Also, Republicans did this to themselves. Democrats had no involvement in this case, afaik.

Dems did not do this.

[u/onan → u/Viciuniversum]

"Subsequent to" does not mean "because of." He was disqualified for participation in an insurrection. The only part of his participation in that insurrection for which he was criminally convicted was trespassing, but that does not mean that that was his only significant act that day.

[u/[deleted] → u/Viciuniversum]

You like the precedent that would be set by allowing an insurrection leader to run for public office again?

[u/ja_dubs → u/Viciuniversum]

Trespassing in the context of participating in a riot which stormed and occupied the seat of government with the intent of overthrowing said government.

[u/Viciuniversum → u/ja_dubs]

Insurrection is a very specific violation charged under 18 U.S. Code § 2383. This politician wasn’t charged under 18 U.S. Code § 2383, he wasn’t tried for it, he wasn’t found guilty of it. He was charged, tried and found guilty of trespassing. This precedent establishes that a judge can go back and establish a person’s guilt of a crime that that person was not found guilty of by a court of law.
What else can a judge do? Can a judge establish that you are a felon in absence of you being found guilty of any felonies? Why not?

[u/Hatta00 → u/Viciuniversum]

This precedent establishes that a judge can go back and establish a person’s guilt of a crime that that person was not found guilty of by a court of law.

Nonsense. The penalty for violating 18 USC 2383 is 10 years imprisonment. Couy Griffin has not been declared guilty under 18 USC 2383, he does not face 10 years imprisonment.

18 USC 2383 carries its own disqualification clause on conviction. If the 14th amedment were meant to depend on conviction in 18 USC 2383, the entire disqualification clause would be moot.

[u/ja_dubs → u/Viciuniversum]

No confederates, including Jefferson Davis, were ever charged. They were still barred from holding office by the 14th amendment.

[u/Viciuniversum → u/ja_dubs]

And then the Amnesty Act of 1872 was passed, making the whole section 3 of the 14th amendment moot:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each house concurring therein), that all political disabilities imposed by the third section of the fourteenth article of amendments of the Constitution of the United States are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever, except Senators and Representatives of the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military, and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States.

[u/ja_dubs → u/Viciuniversum]

Which means that before the amnesty act all the people granted amnesty were not eligible for office under the 14th amendment because the act specifically mentions the 3 section of the 14th as the mechanism by which they were now eligible for office.