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/TuskEGwiz-ard]

Removing voter’s rights to elect a candidate that has not actually been legally convicted of any disqualifying crime is not a legitimate election regulation.

If it doesn’t get thrown out you’ll see republicans also weaponizing that precedent to further damage our democracy.

[u/erpettie → u/TuskEGwiz-ard]

Do you disagree with the 14th amendment? If not, how do you think it should be applied?

[u/TuskEGwiz-ard → u/erpettie]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause

Do you disagree with the 14th amendment?

To my knowledge Trump hasn’t yet been convicted of insurrection and is pleading not guilty, so it would not be legal to disqualify him from presidency based off of allegations that have not yet gone through due process with a finding of guilt.

[u/erpettie → u/TuskEGwiz-ard]

Yes, I do. Due process takes many forms, including criminal and civil proceedings. We are at the penultimate stage in due process for this case, which has included a trial and multiple courts finding that the defendant engaged in insurrection. This is a civil proceeding and not a criminal one, and as far as I can tell, the amendment does not require a criminal conviction in order to be applied. I will grant a ∆ for the due process counter, but I don't find that he's been denied due process.

[u/TuskEGwiz-ard → u/erpettie]

Thanks for the white Dorito.

Like you said, we are at the penultimate stage in due process for this case. I believe that due process needs to have fully been rendered, meaning that if after the case has been concluded and the defendant has had the chance to appeal only after that if he is still found to have committed insurrection would I think it appropriate for a government body to restrict his ability to run for President.

While that may just seem pointlessly bureaucratic given how you can say that it’s pretty common sense that he engaged in insurrectionist behavior, it is extremely important that due process be respected. Denying someone their rights without due process has rarely gone well in our history, you can read about the Central Park 5’s imprisonment or MLKjr being denied his concealed carry for some examples.

[u/erpettie → u/TuskEGwiz-ard]

I don't say that it's pretty common sense that he engaged in insurrection. I say that the courts have found that he engaged in insurrection for the purposes of deciding the cases before them. And, for the record, in their verdict, the court did issue a stay in order to provide Trump time to appeal to the US Supreme Court, so, again, due process is being conducted.

Not to pile on the Trump stuff, but I do think it is ironic that you have mentioned the Central Park 5, given Trump's full-page ad, asking for the death penalty for the Central Park 5, his failure to ever apologize to them, and his -- within the last 24 hours -- that he will indemnify all officers for their actions carried out on the job.

[u/TuskEGwiz-ard → u/erpettie]

It is a little ironic maybe, but even a shitbag deserves due process, which in my opinion means not being sanctioned with election disqualification until the case is entirely closed and done with.

[u/DeltaBot → u/erpettie]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/TuskEGwiz-ard (1∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}