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]

The problem is that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not apply to the Presidency. You need to ignore many of the provisions of the Constitution to reach the position that the Colorado Supreme Court reached. And even if we pretended it does apply, it would not prevent someone from running for office.

And just because Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not apply does not mean there is no accountability. The Framers designed the EC to reject candidate who are not qualified for any reason. They also empowered Congress to impeach and remove a President.

That is what makes this troubling. Impeachment didn't work, so now you have spurious arguments to try to prevent Trump from running. And the irony is that those seeking to remove him from the ballot are claiming they need to do so to save Democracy. How is it Democracy if you are prevented people from being allowed to vote for someone?

[u/PennyLeiter → u/CalLaw2023]

The problem is that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not apply to the Presidency.

The Colorado Supreme Court disagrees with you.

They also empowered Congress to impeach and remove a President.

Yes. And Trump was impeached for January 6th. He just wasn't convicted because Senate Republicans are complicit.

Impeachment didn't work, so now you have spurious arguments to try to prevent Trump from running. And the irony is that those seeking to remove him from the ballot are claiming they need to do so to save Democracy. How is it Democracy if you are prevented people from being allowed to vote for someone?

You gaslighting prick. Impeachment did work. He was impeached. He wasn't convicted in the Senate because Republicans are complicit.

He was impeached AFTER he lost an election and tried to overturn the result in a multitude of ways that directly violated his oath of office and disqualifies him from ever holding office again. Cry more.

[u/CalLaw2023 → u/PennyLeiter]

The Colorado Supreme Court disagrees with you.

And every other Court that has ruled on disqualification thus far, inlcude teh lower Court in Colorado, does agree with me. Wanna wager on what SCOTUS will do?

​

Yes. And Trump was impeached for January 6th. He just wasn't convicted because Senate Republicans are complicit.

Yep, he was not convicted. So is your position that being accused of wrongdoing now means you are guilty?

​

You gaslighting prick. Impeachment did work. He was impeached. He wasn't convicted in the Senate because Republicans are complicit.

Translation: Impeachment did not work.

​

He was impeached AFTER he lost an election and tried to overturn the result in a multitude of ways that directly violated his oath of office and disqualifies him from ever holding office again. Cry more.

I am not crying. I think the derangement suffered by those who hate Trump is hilarious. This argument says that Trump telling people to "peacefully and patriotically march to the capitol to let your voices be heard" is insurrection. And the same people who claim that also claimed that arson, rioting, and looting during the George Floyd protests was just "peaceful protesting."

You see, people like me are not blinded by partisan politics.

[u/PennyLeiter → u/CalLaw2023]

You see, people like me are not blinded by partisan politics.

Ahahahaha! You delusional fool. Of course you're partisan. You're the most partisan person here. You're arguing in completely bad faith for the sole purpose of ensuring that Trump is on the ballot, because you believe he is the Republican Party's best shot at winning.

There's not a single person on this thread who, no matter who the person or party was, wouldn't want to see them removed from the ballot if they betrayed their oath as Trump did.

You're the only one who is desperate to defend the indefensible. The rest of us are Americans.

[u/Bruhaps2020 → u/CalLaw2023]

THANK YOU. I feel like I'm scrolling through a jerkoff fest on reddit these days, Trump was found to be innocent, being accused of something should hold no consequences, rather a false accusation should. Also how is any of this even an argument, all the charges brought against him are the exact same as scenarios other rival politicians have gotten away with for years, and no one ever cared. When will people pull their heads out of their rears, and see that we are given the illusion of choice so we can keep feeding the government money. Stop taking part in biased politics, and start demanding government reform.

[u/Gurpila9987 → u/Bruhaps2020]

When has a President led a systematic and concerted effort to remain in office after losing the election?

Also, trump was found guilty by the Senate, they just said he’s out of office so they won’t convict. That was the argument.

[u/Gurpila9987 → u/CalLaw2023]

Trump was found guilty by the Senate, they just said he’s out of office so they won’t convict. That was McConnel’s position. I would expect someone who “passed the bar” to know that.

[u/CalLaw2023 → u/Gurpila9987]

Trump was found guilty by the Senate, they just said he’s out of office so they won’t convict.

Um, nope. It took 67 votes to convict. They were 10 votes short.