• grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    142
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    That, by itself, should be cause to remove the Texas Lt. Gov from office. He’s literally committing sedition and violating his oath of office.

    • reddig33@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      57
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I’m sure Texas will get right on that, just as soon as they’ve removed accused felon Ken Paxton from office.

      • Rhinopotamus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        I recognize this is not the point of the post, but an accused felon doesn’t really make sense, since a felon is someone who is formally tried and convicted of a felonious crime.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    77
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    If he had any real reason to do so, it would be fine. Their problem is that “retalitation” is not a valid reason according to A14.

  • neidu2@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Can a governor do that, though? From my limited knowledge of US political structure, a governor is part of the executive branch, and overruling electoral process can only be done my the judicial branch.

    • Telorand@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      59
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      NAL, but almost certainly not. Governors don’t get to decide who gets to appear on a ballot. Trump got removed, because he was found to have participated in an insurrection, a clear violation of the 14th Amendment.

      If they want to remove Biden, they’ll have to prove he did something disqualifying.

    • noride@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Somehow shitheels always find a way to be shit, I’m afraid.

    • CalicoJack@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      11 months ago

      They’re trying to water down the word “insurrection” as hard as they can so they can invoke the 14th. They haven’t really thought it through much more than that, much like the current impeachment discussions.

      • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        They have been bleating for nearly three years now how “it wasn’t really an insurrection”, and I suppose that has not worked well, because most people continue to ignore them and their nonsense narratives about that. Now they are going to downplay the very term itself. Makes a certain kind of sense.

    • Pratai@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      11 months ago

      He can’t. Like all conservatives in politics- he knows nothing about the laws he swore to uphold.

      • tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        There’s a large swath of dumbassery in the current congress, especially the house and especially since maga, but don’t make the mistake of thinking that all cons are dumb. Tons of the senators are lawyers. They aren’t ignorant of the law, they’re evil people using the law to line their pockets and make the world a worse place. Turtle McConnell couldn’t have been grifting in politics for 137 years if he was stupid.

        • Pratai@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Trump is in politics and worshipped and protected by these people and he’s a complete buffoon. They’re idiots. Period.

          • tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            So your argument is that bc one stupid populist got elected, none of the evil shit conservatives do is done intelligently?

            • Pratai@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              If a person supports an idiot as a leader, they’re clearly not a smart person. So you can follow this simple rule:

              It takes an idiot to elect an idiot.

        • Pratai@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          So let me get this straight:

          Colorado had to go through legal challenges and courts to remove a twice impeached rapist that’s hell bent on turning America into his own personal bank, but Texas can just remove people at will?

  • ChemicalPilgrim@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    11 months ago

    This is going to lead to a civil war. The Republicans simply cannot accept any consequences for their actions, or any failure of their insane message to win a majority vote, so they resort to insurrection.

  • reddig33@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    97
    ·
    11 months ago

    Make no mistake — by not waiting for a conviction to remove Trump from the ballot, this is the Pandora’s box that has been opened. Just like impeachment, it will be used and abused.

    • Telorand@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      95
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      He was convicted—of participating in an insurrection by incitement. That’s what the judge before SCOCO ruled, and SCOCO finished the groundwork she laid out. He was therefore rightly ejected from the Colorado ballot under the 14th Amendment.

      If you mean waiting for a conviction from his other cases, none of them would bar him from running. Felons are allowed to run for president.

      But no matter what, Republicans will always use whatever they can to do damage. Justice shouldn’t stop just because you know they’ll continue to abuse the system as they have always done.

    • TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Show me in the 14th Amendment Section 3 where it says you have to be convicted.

      Here is the full text. Show me any mention of convicted:

      Section 3

      No person shall be a Senator 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, who, having 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, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

      • reddig33@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        36
        ·
        11 months ago

        See “felony disenfranchisement” and “presumption of innocence”. Amendment 14 section 3 doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Depriving someone of life, liberty, or property does require due process of law, which would be a “conviction”.

          But, I am failing to see how “running for president” can be considered a constitutionally protected right or privilege. Can you show me how this right or privilege comes into existence?

          • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            Depriving someone of life, liberty, or property does require due process of law, which would be a “conviction”.

            People are kicked off of voter rolls all the time without being convicted of anything. That’s actually more egregious violation of rights if you ask me.

          • reddig33@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            22
            ·
            11 months ago

            It’s right there in the constitution. It says anyone over age 35 who is a citizen and has lived here for 14 years.

            https://www.usa.gov/requirements-for-presidential-candidates

            To take this away from someone should require conviction of a crime. Just as taking away the right to vote does.

            Look, I can’t stand Trump. But I also don’t believe in stripping rights from someone without being convicted first. It’s too slippery of a slope, and it could easily be abused otherwise.

            • TheDoozer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              17
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              11 months ago

              The context, though, was in response to the Confederates returning to the Union. They did not need convictions for this to apply (it’s not like they would try and convict every person that participated in the Civil War on the wrong side), so I don’t know why you think it would start applying now.

            • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              11 months ago

              It’s right there in the constitution. It says anyone over age 35 who is a citizen and has lived here for 14 years.

              The minimum criteria mentioned in the constitution do not strip the power of the state to run their own elections. The existence of those criteria do not negate the powers conveyed to the state. Any individual “rights” conveyed by those requirements are still subject to the powers conveyed to the state.

              The constitution empowered the Colorado legislature to enact law declaring how its elections will be run. The Colorado legislature declared that the Colorado courts will be empowered to answer any questions arising under its electoral process.

              A question of candidate eligibility was raised. The duly elected and constitutionally empowered legislature enacted law requiring the court to answer that question. Just because Trump doesn’t like that answer does not mean his rights were infringed.

              • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                The minimum criteria mentioned in the constitution do not strip the power of the state to run their own elections.

                Agreed. The Constitution states minimum requirements to be President. It definitely takes more than that to become President. The ruling out of Colorado doesn’t even forbid him from being President. Obviously he could still win enough states without Colorado and this ruling doesn’t forbid electoral delegates from voting for him either. If a candidate misses a deadline even it could keep them off the ballot. Being listed on one is not a right.

    • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yeah, except there was very detailed reasoning that went along with that ruling. Permitting crybaby ass Texas officials to just…follow their feelings would be insulting to everyone.

    • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      If the court was not able to find a factual basis for the requested relief then they would simply deny the application/complaint. The court reviewed the facts and granted the requested relief. Why does a different court need to rule on the facts before this court can act?

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Being ineligible to be president is not a punishment for a crime. No criminal conviction is required.

    • DragonTypeWyvern
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      The insurrection clause was used after the Civil War exactly as intended, to prevent treasonous filth from running for office despite not being convicted in criminal courts.