• lingh0e@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary.

    • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      Ok,but somebody has to make the determination that Trumps conduct is consistent with sedition. Just from a formal point of view I don’t see how a CO court can rule on this, when the action took place in DC.

        • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          So a CO judge makes this determination even though the act occurred in DC, where the court has no jurisdiction? Democracy is so fucked if this stands.

          Again, if congress had convicted Trump, or a judge makes a ruling of seditious behavior within its own jurisdiction I am totally on board with striking him from the ballot. But this ruling just sounds flimsy to me.

          • lingh0e@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            9 months ago

            So a CO judge makes this determination even though the act occurred in DC, where the court has no jurisdiction? Democracy is so fucked if this stands.

            Do you not understand how the constitution works?

          • Anti-Face Weapon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            I think that the more concerning implication is that states are the ones that determine who should be allowed to run for president or not. This is messy and not cohesive, I don’t think this sort of structure which we may be building is conductive to a healthy democracy. But we will have to see how far reaching these events reach.