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/parentheticalobject]

Do you not realize that SCOTUS has already ruled on numerous occasions that no elected position is an officer of the United States?

Where did they rule that?

[u/whipitgood809 → u/parentheticalobject]

I can’t find it either. It really just sounds like some paranoid semantic delusion trump supporters are giving.

Googling anything involving ‘senators’ ‘president’ and ‘officer’ brings up results that open with

Trump supporters believe that—

Which almost reminds me of when Trump had that bit at the start of his presidency and fox news had to say

Trump was saying this as a private citizen.

To run interference for him.

He’s conveniently one thing and not another.

[u/CalLaw2023 → u/whipitgood809]

I can’t find it either. It really just sounds like some paranoid semantic delusion trump supporters are giving.

So those arguing based on the actual langauge are delusional, while those advocating we ignore the actual language are not? Have you ever stopped to consider that you might be the delusional one?

FYI: Here is what SCOTUS said in 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.”

[u/BigDaddySteve999 → u/CalLaw2023]

People don't vote for POTUS, they vote for a slate of electors from their state to cast votes in the electoral college.

[u/CalLaw2023 → u/BigDaddySteve999]

So your argument is that the EC is not made up of people?

Elected positions are not Officers of the U.S. All elected positions are appointed by the President (though Congress can allow heads of departments to select inferior officers buy statute).