im 100% canadian, I dont live in the US and wondering about your system.
so as i understand your political system, a president can only hold office 2 terms. in Trumps case, he served once already, does that mean he can only serve one more, or is the clock reset and he gets a shot at 8 years?
Biden is dont do things that seems unlawful. Because in his mind, he doesnt want to set an example for future presidents to reference and use that example to justify doing the same thing.
Also, how do you even prevent someone that wins both the popular vote and electoral college from becoming president? trump supporters would riot and even non-maga military officials would have to recognize trump as the next president.
The thing about democracy is that we all agree to let the person winning take office. Otherwise its just civil war to determine who is the leader.
You seem to have the impression that the US is a Defensive Democracy like in modern day Germany than can ban anti-democratic parties, but the US is not that. The US is a “whoever wins takes office” type of democracy, whether they are pro-democracy or a fascist. We would need to change the whole US culture about democracy if we want to become a Defensive Democracy.
So then what does the insurrection clause of the 14th amendment do? Just paper filler? If someone was under 35 it wouldn’t matter how many votes they got for president, if someone wasn’t a naturalized citizen it wouldn’t matter how many votes they got. Im not asking for antidemocratic things to be banned, im asking for the law to be followed. Is the law always secondary to popularity? If I was popular enough could I simply go assault whoever I want? Because it sounds a lot like you’re arguing written law shouldn’t matter when you’re popular enough because of the type of democracy the US is.
I’m gonna reiterate what I wrote in another comment:
Basically, the people who wrote the 14th amendment didn’t specify how the ineligibility clause is invoked. Because it could be interpreted in a lot of different ways. Is it:
A. If popular opinion deems a person commited an act of insurrection, they are inelligible.
B. Congress passed a resolution that deems a person have committed an act of insurrection, then they become inelligible.
C. The Supreme Court has ruled that a person have committed insurrection, then they become inelligible
D. The person gets charged with committing an act of insurrection, and they become inelligible.
E. The person gets convicted with committing an act of insurrection, and they become inelligible.
Because the problems are:
A is just dumb,
B would allow a republican controlled congress declare a democratic candidate inelligible. Basically its just partisan shenanigans.
C also allows partisan shenanigans
D is presuming someone guilty, bad idea.
E trump has only been convicted of state charges of fraud, not anything involving insurrection. Not to mention, it’d require enough evidence to convince a jury to convict for something serious like insurrection.
So yea they should’ve been more specific. Because the vagueness gives the supreme court the legitimacy to interpret it the way they want to.