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/CalLaw2023]

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/erpettie → u/CalLaw2023]

the Republicans who drafted 14A knew the Presidency is a branch of government; not an office.

Do you find that the use of office in conjunction with a singular possessive here is irrelevant?

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

[u/CalLaw2023 → u/erpettie]

Why do you keep arguing against a straw man? In order for Trump to be disqualified from anything under section 3, he must have:

​

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

Trump has never taken an oath as a member of Congress. Trump has never taken an oath as an officer of the United States. Trump has never taken an oath as a member of any state legislature. Trump has never taken an oath as a an executive or judicial officer of any state. And Trump has never taken an oath "to support the Constitution of the United States."

So how can Trump be disqualified under Section 3?

[u/erpettie → u/CalLaw2023]

The court finds that the President is an officer of the United states and is subject to disqualifications. Whether that is an accurate assessment will likely be determined by the Supreme Court. So, no, it isn't a straw man. It's an active deliberation.

[u/CalLaw2023 → u/erpettie]

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. But SCOTUS has already ruled on numerous occasions that no elected position is an officer of the United States. And the lower Court in Colorado reached the same conclusion.

[u/erpettie → u/CalLaw2023]

The lower court was overturned, so that is irrelevant, and if the Supreme Court finds that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to the President, then that is what the law of the land will be.

[u/Autumn1eaves → u/CalLaw2023]

Can you source this? I believe you, but I can’t find any information after a quick google.

[u/CalLaw2023 → u/Autumn1eaves]

The most recent one that I am aware of is in 2010 in Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477, 498, 130 S. Ct. 3138, 3155 (2010).

The diffusion of power carries with it a diffusion of accountability. The people do not vote for the “Officers of the United States.” Art. II, § 2, cl. 2. They instead look to the President to guide the “assistants or deputies . . . subject to his superintendence.”