this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2023
295 points (97.7% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7210 readers
349 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

DENVER (AP) — The campaign to use the U.S. Constitution’s “insurrection” clause to bar former President Donald Trump from running for the White House again enters a new phase this week as hearings begin in two states on lawsuits that might end up reaching the U.S. Supreme Court.

A weeklong hearing on one lawsuit to bar Trump from the ballot in Colorado begins Monday, while on Thursday oral arguments are scheduled before the Minnesota Supreme Court on an effort to kick the Republican former president off the ballot in that state.

all 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] crawley@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago

...in two states that Trump never would have won anyway. It's absolutely the right thing to do and I hope more states follow suit as ultimately that would force the GOP to kick Trump off the ballot as well.

[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 34 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Why is this even a thing. If dude wasn't a member of the 1% and laws applied as should be usual, he'd be in jail.

[–] paris@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 points 1 year ago

I understand the frustration in watching him waltz around unfazed after what he did, but we've never had to apply this law before. We need to get this right the first time. We can't afford to fuck up applying this law, and not fucking it up takes time.

[–] hansl@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Both the richest and poorest of people are equally prohibited from sleeping under a bridge.

[–] dvoraqs@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

A rich person could probably easily get a permit to do so and pay people to do anything needed for it

[–] FutileRecipe@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This should definitely end up at the U. S. Supreme Court. This is for a federal position, so it should be decided at a federal level.

[–] ira@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Unfortunately that's not how it works because of the electoral college. You're ultimately voting to choose your state's electors. It's up to each and every state to decide the process for choosing their electors.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

Electors; those people threatened, stalked and harassed by gun-clutcher Trump cultists? Those guys?

I'm in favour of removing that role, now that it's changed from "valuable last-ditch crazy-dictator prevention mechanism" to "go hug your kids and do what we say".

[–] DevCat@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

There are a number of republicans that would disagree. Thankfully, they've been told no.

The independent state legislature theory or independent state legislature doctrine (ISL) is a judicially rejected legal theory that posits that the Constitution of the United States delegates authority to regulate federal elections within a state to that state's elected lawmakers without any checks and balances from state courts, governors, or other bodies with legislative power (such as constitutional conventions or independent commissions).

[–] imgprojts@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

If that fails I suggest we also add any other previously tried criminal that we see as fit to be our president. In a country having hundreds of thousands of perfectly good Americans that don't commit crimes, sure, let's give criminals a venue to better adjusting their freedoms.