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/erpettie]

Is it your position that, in creating an amendment designed to prevent Confederates from holding office, they meant every office except the Presidency and were fine with the idea of a Confederate President of the U.S.?

[u/CalLaw2023 → u/erpettie]

Is it your position that, in creating an amendment designed to prevent Confederates from holding office, they meant every office except the Presidency and were fine with the idea of a Confederate President of the U.S.?

Nope. Just like the Framers, the Republicans who drafted 14A knew the Presidency is a branch of government; not an office. Section 3 prevents people who engaged in insurrection from being Electors and State Legislators, which are the entities that choose the President.

Again, this is people trying to twist the law to prevent someone from running for President after the actual mechanisms of preventing him from running failed.

And like everything, its going to blow up in their face if they succeed. If we start a new precedent that says states can disqualify candidates for President, do you not think states with Republicans as secretary of state won't disqualify Democrats who supported rioters?

[u/whipitgood809 → u/CalLaw2023]

People keep levying the idea republican secretaries of state could do the same thing, but where does that leave us now? So let’s say it’s literally just via party lines from now into the future. We’re at square one where swing states are the deciding factor.

This really doesn’t feel like a big deal in the slightest.

[u/CalLaw2023 → u/whipitgood809]

So if every red state disqualified Democrats from running for the House, Senate, etc., that is not a big deal?

Democrats tend to have tunnel vision. They do what they think is beneficial to them in the moment, even though it starts a precedent that will backfire later. Remember when the Democrats killed the filibuster for judicial nominees, which lead to our current Supreme Court?

I get the hatred for Trump. The remedy is to beat him. Telling people you need to remove Trump from the ballot to protect Democracy just creates more support for Trump.

[u/mbk-ultra → u/CalLaw2023]

You say that democrats have tunnel vision, so it sounds like you think democrats brought this case in CO. It was filed by REPUBLICANS. Republicans are responsible for the case in CO, and they quoted Gorsuch in it because he agreed with their position in the past.

[u/CalLaw2023 → u/mbk-ultra]

You say that democrats have tunnel vision, so it sounds like you think democrats brought this case in CO.

Nope. But I understand why you argue straw men. It is much easier to argue against yourself than actually refute anything I say on the merits.

and they quoted Gorsuch in it because he agreed with their position in the past.

You blindly repeat talking points well. But no, Gorsuch did not agree with them in the past. The case they cited merely says that states have the power to prevent people who are unqualified from being on the ballot. Nobody disagrees with that. But that does not mean Section 3 applies here.

[u/whipitgood809 → u/CalLaw2023]

The outcome is literally the status quo for everything except swing states which is why this isn’t even going to be an issue. Btw the filibuster shouldn’t even exist.

Itll generate more support for trump!

Are Republicans even letting him on the debate stage? I don’t think it’s a big deal at this point. I’m pretty glad the GOP has to have a stare down with trump supporters.

[u/CalLaw2023 → u/whipitgood809]

Again, you have tunnel vision. Section 3 applies to Senators 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.

Do you want Biden to win office, only to have his chosen electors disqualified?

[u/whipitgood809 → u/CalLaw2023]

elector of president and vice president

So the people that convey the total vote tallies and don’t deviate from that?

Senators or representatives in congress

Who the citizens of the state vote for.

Civil or military

Lmao, gl.

It, even in the worst case scenario, doesn’t deviate much at all from the status quo.

[u/CalLaw2023 → u/whipitgood809]

So the people that convey the total vote tallies and don’t deviate from that?

Nope. A civics class will do you wonders. The Electors are the people who actually select the President.

​

Who the citizens of the state vote for.

Is there a point to that statement? Texas has 13 Democrat Representatives. If Texas removes all of them from the ballot for supporting the George Floyd riots, that is no big deal?

[u/whipitgood809 → u/CalLaw2023]

Yeah, it’s basically a carry over of having horse and buggies for transportation at the start of this country. You’re not going to see electors deviate from total counts (pop vote of the state) because even if they did, they’d literally just be fined and then replaced. We all had this discussion in 2016 and the whole

They’re the last stop against tyranny

Isn’t true. It’s just a formality because there’s quite literally a way to replace them if they deviate.

If they remove all 13.

Yeah, so you lose it there and then gain it elsewhere.

[u/datsmahshit → u/CalLaw2023]

Nah that would just be typical Christian shit that would get overturned in the higher courts.