politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
part of the problem here is that the constitution doesn't actually recommend removing people from ballots. we're in uncharted waters here. Though I agree, remove trump from the ballot.
It does say he's not eligible and the feds won't do it, now it's left up to the states.
the feds won't do it because the feds don't run elections. Every state decides whose on the ballot. It's literally not the fed's job to do it, and never was
Are the states not also obligated to uphold the constitution?
the constitution only says he's ineligible. It doesn't say how to deal with that. It's left it to the states to figure that out on their own.
It should be pretty clear by the definition of "ineligible."
Interesting thought. So in any state that includes Trump on the ballot, a party should put forward a 30-year-old (legal) recent immigrant as a presidential candidate. Either they would need to put the candidate on the ballot whether they are ineligible or not, or remove Trump (or be shown for their double standard).
Meaning SCOTUS won't say if he's ineligible or not.
For the primary ballot? Certainly not. It’s not their purview. And in any case they’ve only got a few days to make that determination- many states are rapidly closing in on when the ballots need to be finalized so they can be printed and distributed.
Most likely, SCROTUS is waiting until after the regular election to see if such a ruling is even necessary.
I would argue that the constitution not only recommends Trump be removed from the ballot. It almost requires it.
The constitution explicitly states that people like Trump who participated in an insurrection are ineligible for office. This is similar to other requirements for the office. For example, you must be a natural citizen over 35 years old, etc.
Constitutionally, each state chooses how to run their own elections. However, that freedom does not give them the power to go against the other parts of the constitution.
Traditionally, states will not put people on presidential ballots who do not meet the requirements to be president.
But do they have to do that? I would argue that the case with Trump proves that, going forward, they do have to exclude ineligible candidates for president. Because Trump is the first ineligible candidate who is leading in polls.
Every state election he might win is a constitutional crisis. Each state has the duty to follow the Constitution and ensure that Trump doesn't win the presidency. The current method for doing this action is removing him from the ballot.
So…. You can point me to where the constitution actually says thst?
No? Okay. So it doesn’t say that.
It implies that. And yes, every state has historically kept ineligible candidates off the ballot. But nobody has contested this. Nobody has argued this in court. So now that it is a crisis, it’s going to the relevant courts.
That relevant court is the US courts- not the state courts like Mn. State courts are concerned with upholding their respective state constitutions, which probably say even less about it.
It’s really for SCOTUS to decide, and they’re not going to decide until it’s neccessary. Because they don’t want to set new precedent unless they have to.
The constitution is a legal document that has over 200 years of being interpreted by courts. Legally, it says a lot of things that it doesn't explicitly say, and those things are the result of something called "arguments".
In my comment, my first words were "I would argue that". This is because I am making an argument that the constitution recommends Trump be removed from the ballot. You know, similar to how somebody made an argument that the constitution guarantees that people are allowed to marry between races, and so now that's what it says. But you can't point to the part where it explicitly says it.
If I meant, "the constitution explicitly states that", then I would have used that language, instead. You can tell that by the way I used that exact language in my second paragraph.
In court, they made the argument in court. Which is now what they’re doing… yes?
I could just as easily argue that it says dipping french fries in frosties is illegal…. doesn’t make me right. (Who am I kidding fries+frosties is awesome).
For better or worse, this is the process we’re stuck with.
My argument referenced the contents of several parts of the constitution, including two amendments. It referenced current practices by states as well as reasoning as to why not following the recommendation can have poor outcomes. In response to your comment, I even referenced the contents of existing case law.
Your "argument" lacks anything approaching an argument. Where's a reference to any part of the constitution? Where's any precedent? If you can make a similar constitutional argument about dipping french fries in frosties being illegal, feel free to do so. But you don't get any credit for simply claiming you can do it. I doubt you could make a coherent argument on french fries if you tried. Maybe not even if you were a law student, for example. But I'd bet a constitutional lawyer would be able to make an argument. But anyways, the point is that you didn't even try. You just claimed victory.
I feel like we've gone through the part where I disagreed with you. Then you reacted by misinterpreting my comment. Then, I explained everything, and now, we both know that there's nothing factually wrong with what I said, but you are still somehow trying to make new arguments. There's nothing to win here, and in fact, your last argument is quite low quality, trivial to refute.
My point is that I don't understand your motivation. It seems like you should just acknowledge that you understand what I mean, and we can all get on with life doing other things.
No, but, we’ve apparently got to the point, where you feel the need to insult my intelligence, while still ignoring the point.
The purpose of the frosty analogy is simple: it’s absurd for any one to make any argument- no matter how reasonable and then assert that that is how it is. The fact- which you keep glossing over- is that we have never faced this particular question before, and the constitution’s sole input is “congress gets to do it.”
There’s long precedent, of course, that ineligible people may be kept off the ballot… but there’s really no solid argument at all for insisting they must be kept off- indeed, precedent is against you here, in the 1918 matter of Victor Berger- whose conviction under the espionage act prompted the senate to call a special committee to enforce section three.
I don’t know that anyone tried to keep Berger off the ballot; but he was in fact, elected and unseated twice. The fact is, these cases are in entirely uncharted water, and we can argue all we want on the internet. But those arguments provide zero influence into how the courts will decide the matter- and for better or worse, it's the courts who will decide these things.
is trump ineligible? certainly. But the constitution itself provides no clarity in how the enforcement mechanism is supposed to work, and outside some rando commissioner in New Mexico that got outed from a state position, Berger is the last person to be held ineligible- and the only person who was not a confederate.
If you followed MN's ruling on the matter, the judge basically decided that there was no law nor state-constitutional clause prohibiting Trump from being nominated by the state's republican party. Because there is none. Every state is going to have to figure out that matter for themselves- and when (if?) trump wins in november; then it becomes a matter for congress.
I started off by letting everybody know I was making an argument. When you're making a legal-style argument, you try to convince people that it's true. So, you say things as if they're obviously true.
This is literally what lawyers do when they're making arguments. If it's "absurd", as you say, then our entire adversarial system is absurd. But this is the way things are actually done.
If I was doing something other than an argument, say, a legal analysis, I would use different language.
I actually tried fairly hard to make sure that my comment did not insult your intelligence, but focused on your argument. But I also said that you probably didn't have the knowledge of a constitutional scholar to actually make the argument. You might find that an insult, but it was part of my argument because you said it was something you were "easily" able to do. You were the one who brought up your own abilities ("I could just as easily argue that it says dipping french fries in frosties is illegal") as part of the argument. If you didn't want me to talk about them at all, then you either shouldn't have brought them up as part of the argument, or you should have done the thing that you said you could easily do.
I get the feeling, because you keep trying to bring up other things, that you feel that I'm somehow being off-topic. But then, you still keep arguing against those same points that I'm making, so that makes them on-topic. If you don't think they're worth arguing, then don't argue them. From my perspective, all that happened was that I brought up a valid argument, and you keep attacking it, which is fine. But all of those attacks lack merit, so I feel the need to defend it. If you'd stop attacking, or if you somehow proved your point (which I don't think is possible), then this thread would simply end.
(By the way, I want you to know that I don't believe in comment downvotes for anything except completely off-topic things like spam. I haven't been upvoting your replies, but I certainly haven't been downvoting them. I am actually impressed when I meet another person like me who argues, but doesn't downvote, which is what you're doing, as most of my comments have zero downvotes. So overall, I commend you for that. I'm sorry that other people are downvoting you.)
Why would anyone keep an ineligible candidate's name on the ballot?
Dunno.
Because they’re idiotic sycophants?
The point is there’s mk qualification of what is “insurrection”, etc, no process for fact finding or determining the legitimacy of the accusations and really no way to keep people from voting for the orange turnip anyhow.
We all “know” he incited an insurrection. We all know he’s ineligible. But this is an inconceivable and utterly novel legal territory here, people are going to have wonky takes.
Is Gavin Newsom an idiotic sycophant? The article is about how he wants to keep Trump on the ballot.
Colorado begs to differ.
Colorado came to a ruling after investigation; the courts heard the case and had a finding of fact.
that's the process at work. I haven't a clue what game Newsom is playing at. but honestly, I couldn't be arsed after what he wants. It doesn't really concern him all that much, really.
Because there's not a consensus that they're ineligible.
That's why we have judges.
There's not a consensus among judges.
Had the Dems done an actual impeachment of Trump, called witnesses and the like, and got a conviction this question would already be answered around the nation. But the half assed it and now we're here.