this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2023
879 points (97.2% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3413 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution bans anyone who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the U.S. from holding office.

A Florida lawyer is suing Donald Trump in an attempt to disqualify his current run for president. Lawrence A. Caplan’s Thursday lawsuit claims that the ex-president’s involvement in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot would make him ineligible to run again, thanks to the Constitution’s 14th Amendment—a Civil War-era addition aimed at preventing those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the U.S. from holding office. “Now given that the facts seem to be crystal clear that Trump was involved to some extent in the insurrection that took place on January 6th, the sole remaining question is whether American jurists who swear an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution upon their entry to the bench, will choose to follow the letter of the Constitution in this case,” the lawsuit says, also citing Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia. Legal experts say it’s an uphill battle to argue in court, since the amendment has hardly been exercised in modern history. “Realistically, it’s not a Hail Mary, but it’s just tossing the ball up and hoping it lands in the right place,” Charles Zelden, a professor of history and legal studies at Nova Southeastern University, told the South Florida Sun Sentinel.

archive link to South Florida Sun Sentinel article: https://archive.ph/1BntD

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] elbarto777@lemmy.world 151 points 1 year ago (14 children)

Anyone who says that the election was rigged, and insists on it after being proven false over and over again, well..... if that doesn't prove malice, then I don't know what will.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] Chickenstalker@lemmy.world 93 points 1 year ago (7 children)

In many other countries, insurrection gets you a nice brick wall and a blindfold. In America, you get to run for President (again).

[–] dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Except the trial for the insurrection is just barely starting, not to mention all the other indictments. Yes, he wasn't immediately locked up and should have been. Yes, he's being treated differently because he's rich, but it's not like nothing is happening.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Gatsby@discuss.online 63 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

It’s crazy that anyone would think he can and should be allowed to run for President again. The 14th Amendment is quite clear. And the man incited a violent insurrection to install himself as a dictator during what was a purely symbolic procedure. Trump lost, Biden won. Counting the electoral votes on 1/6 was a formality. There was no actual way for him to remain in office so he betrayed the nation by attempting to destroy democracy as we know it in this country. The only place he belongs in 2024 is ADX Florence.

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

The question is how to enforce the 14th amendment. This suit looks like a decent attempt at it, that doesn't require Congress to act. (Congress has way too many Republicans right now, who will not enforce the 14th amendment against one of their own.)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] affiliate@lemmy.world 60 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Legal experts say it’s an uphill battle to argue in court, since the amendment has hardly been exercised in modern history.

i find this very strange. it’s like they’re saying no one really knows what the amendment means because it hasn’t been used in a while. i’m not a lawyer, so my opinion doesn’t really mean much on this. i but i don’t see how it’s that vague (although it is a little vague). i also don’t see why the legal strength of an amendment should depend so much on how often it’s been used.

i’m not saying they’re wrong, i just don’t understand why it’s like that.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 year ago (9 children)

It's not obvious what it means to "engage in insurrection" without case law defining what that means. What exactly does "insurrection" mean? What types of actions are required for this law to apply?

It's much more of a gamble.

[–] perviouslyiner@lemm.ee 18 points 1 year ago (3 children)

7 people were convicted already of seditious conspiracy, so either of the conspiracy charges connecting the former president with directing their actions would be pretty strong evidence.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] agentsquirrel@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

And then there are other amendments like the 2nd Amendment with the puzzling and vague "well-regulated militia" language that never seems to be a problem...

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] ineedaunion@lemm.ee 34 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, felons can't even vote.

[–] ech0@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

This is what I've been saying. He's a felon! Over 90 felonies! He's can't run for election.

[–] doggle@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He hasn't actually been convicted of any yet... technically not a felon until he's sentenced, if I'm not mistaken

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] YurkshireLad@lemmy.ca 34 points 1 year ago

Caplan to receive death threats in 3….2….1……

[–] sycamore@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So now we'll have a supreme court ruling that what Trump did was not an insurrection. Great.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'd love to see this asshat removed from any chance of getting into office. The GOP will replace him with someone just as awful as far as policies and fascist tendencies, but hopefully they'll be less appealing to the general electorate.

Think: DeSADIST. It was funny to watch how people reacted to his performance in that "debate". He's so unpleasant and smarmy, if he were to win the primary, I think he's flame out so hard in the general.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Trump is a cult of personality, once he goes, the next guy can be Trump In All But Name, and the fanbois won't care

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Immersive_Matthew@sh.itjust.works 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sounds like someone similar to Trump does not want to run against him.

[–] Treczoks@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think a lot of people would just be happy to see Trump cut out of the race for good. There will be no majority for DeSantis, because the Trump disciples will shun him, cutting down any possible Non-Trump REP candidate.

[–] lingh0e@lemmy.film 17 points 1 year ago (5 children)

In that scenario I imagine there would be a large number of maga goons who would still write in Trumps name. I can also see people angrily crossing out Bidens name or otherwise defacing their ballot, spoiling their vote.

This next election is going to be an absolute shit show.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is this the Florida Man redemption arc?

[–] DragonTypeWyvern 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Seems more like a preemptive strike in an attempt to discredit the claim early in a friendly district.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] fne8w2ah@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

A Florida Man with a functioning brain.

[–] Lon3star@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

Show me... potato salad!

[–] relative_iterator@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Wouldn’t he need to be convicted first before this suit has a chance of winning?

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›