The Trump campaign on Tuesday announced a new program aimed at promoting absentee, mail-in and early in-person voting – practices that former President Donald Trump has disparaged for years while promoting false claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election.
Congress can’t requalify him for office. They and only they have the authority but they don’t have the votes.
I don’t disagree with the rest, but this part I just have no idea what part of the constitution you are referencing. He’s 35+, a natural born citizen, and a 10+ year resident. That’s it. He’s qualified because beyond that the founding fathers foolishly had faith that the citizenry would hold politicians to account. I guess to their credit that worked for a couple hundred years.
Unfortunately, it is left to Congress to declare an insurrection, and that section is of little use to us. That was adjudicated with several states trying to remove him from the ballot. So he doesn’t need to be requalified.
I question that decision, particularly given the current extremely partisan court. But unfortunately our constitution gives us no recourse save impeachment or passing explicit laws that are within the framework of the constitution, but bar Trump.
The votes aren’t there for either so the law holds that the supreme court’s interpretation that Congress must vote to declare an act to be insurrection is currently the law of the land.
We have a tremendous fight ahead of us to undo all the harm Trump caused in his first term. I’m talking perhaps decades.
Very true. The partisanship calls into question everything the court does, but the unanimity is a strong statement. There are reasons for it, but it’s frustrating to watch a crowd of people violently attack the Capital for the express purpose of preventing the lawful transfer of power and then have the courts say damn our eyes, Congress gets to decide.
It very clearly was the thing we all saw with our own eyes as it happened, but the right side of Congress won’t say so because it’s to their political advantage.
Supreme Court said he can’t be removed from the ballot based on that. Not sure what you call that, but the clause does us no good in preventing him from being elected.
I don’t disagree with the rest, but this part I just have no idea what part of the constitution you are referencing. He’s 35+, a natural born citizen, and a 10+ year resident. That’s it. He’s qualified because beyond that the founding fathers foolishly had faith that the citizenry would hold politicians to account. I guess to their credit that worked for a couple hundred years.
Section 3 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.
Unfortunately, it is left to Congress to declare an insurrection, and that section is of little use to us. That was adjudicated with several states trying to remove him from the ballot. So he doesn’t need to be requalified.
I question that decision, particularly given the current extremely partisan court. But unfortunately our constitution gives us no recourse save impeachment or passing explicit laws that are within the framework of the constitution, but bar Trump.
The votes aren’t there for either so the law holds that the supreme court’s interpretation that Congress must vote to declare an act to be insurrection is currently the law of the land.
We have a tremendous fight ahead of us to undo all the harm Trump caused in his first term. I’m talking perhaps decades.
Note that on this particular matter, they ruled unanimously that Trump couldn’t be removed from ballots.
Very true. The partisanship calls into question everything the court does, but the unanimity is a strong statement. There are reasons for it, but it’s frustrating to watch a crowd of people violently attack the Capital for the express purpose of preventing the lawful transfer of power and then have the courts say damn our eyes, Congress gets to decide.
It very clearly was the thing we all saw with our own eyes as it happened, but the right side of Congress won’t say so because it’s to their political advantage.
Agreed, though to be fair, since we all saw it with our own eyes, you would hope we would move to prevent it by voting against him.
The Section 3 clause absolutely has not been adjudicated. Nice try.
Supreme Court said he can’t be removed from the ballot based on that. Not sure what you call that, but the clause does us no good in preventing him from being elected.
The Supreme court’s reply: Section 5 14th Amendment
They said only the national legislature can make this determination, based on section 5.