Is the 14th Amendment a joke??
this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2024
332 points (97.7% liked)
politics
25544 readers
2438 users here now
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It just doesn't apply to the president. Traitors aren't allowed in office unless its the highest possible office. Just like judges can't accept gifts unless they're the highest possible judge. Rules don't apply to the people at the top. It's what the founding fathers wanted.
Well, scotus did say states can keep them off state ballots.
Every ballot is a state ballot. That decision is fucking bullshit.
Edit: Okay, there are municipal and county ballots, but the Federal government doesn't administer any public election.
I agree they shouldn’t ever hold office, but the 14th amendment is about people who had previously held office. Assumably none of these idiots have held office.
"I wish there was a third party to vote for"
the monkey paw curls
Seeds planted for the Insurrectionist party
I mean, that'd spoil the Republican vote and clue in any of the terminally-apathetic voters into exactly what they're endorsing.
I mean maybe. I think you might not have a great read on what the typical Republican voter represents.
Rightwing media has done an excellent job disambiguating the "Republican" identity from the "Conservative"/ "MAGA" identities. They get to bring those identities with them and I think for the vast majority of current Republican voters, that might be more than enough. No need for the shitty Republican branding (in fact, the act of rejecting it could be a very powerful attractant).
Democrats have done a much better job at keeping their brand identity indistinguishable from the movements it supposes to represent, perhaps to the detriment of those movements. Unless you are a junky and really pay attention to this stuff (which lets be real, most people here are), a Democrat and a Progressive are indistinct. Which is like, actually fucking hilarious because for me, on the rare occasion that I get into it with a conservative, they CONSTANTLY assume I'm some kind of Pelosi or Schumer fanboy, when in reality, I'm like I'm probably more opposed to them then any Republican or conservative is.
If Trump went third party, the Republican party would disappear like a fart in the wind and be doing about as well as the Libertarian party, for at least the presidential seat. Obviously a new third party won't have the state level infrastructure, but for the big seat, a conservative third parties success depends 100% on the person running. I also think that in either 2016, or 2020, a progressive third party/ independent candidate (like if Bernie had seen the writing on the walls), could have handily won. The biggest issue in American politics is that most voters actually fucking hate both republicans and democrats, but you need their infrastructure to win for pretty much anything but the big seat.
Perhaps. I don't keep up with Republican politics that much. But I still get the sense the silent majority of Republican voters are more centrist that straight facist ticket.
I also think that in either 2016, or 2020, a progressive third party/ independent candidate (like if Bernie had seen the writing on the walls), could have handily won. The biggest issue in American politics is that most voters actually fucking hate both republicans and democrats, but you need their infrastructure to win for pretty much anything but the big seat.
So this argument relies on the fact that DNC deliberately would have torpedoed Bernie's chances. That they worked to suppress his chances. While he wasn't the DNC's favorite son, this is a bit of a conspiracy theory. Bernie and progressives just aren't that popular nationwide among Democrats in general. They are popular on the internet, but new and fringe movements tend to be (remember the early Libertarian movement and how Ron Paul blew up?). The DNC is certainly trending progressive, as most of the world has. But America has always been very centrist-minded, due to FPTP voting.
There are plenty of other parties to vote for! Oh, you mean ones that actually have a chance at winning?
Why are they not barred from doing so if they were involved with a failed insurrection?
They are but you can't challenge it until they run and even then its not worth it to fight it until they're elected at which point you ask for an injunction to prevent them being installed while you actually challenge their ability to be seated.
They are but you can't challenge it until they run
It looks like all these people are already running though?
and even then its not worth it to fight it until they're elected
Disagreed, just in general it is always worth fighting to keep anti-democractic insurrectionists out of government, plus I could see a court saying something like
"Well, we don't like allowing insurrectionists in government, but we also don't like going against the will of the people, and they did win. Maybe if this has been challenged far enough in advance that the Republicans had a reasonable opportunity to find a different candidate to run we'd be ok doing this, but now it just feels anti-democractic... Karl Popper? Never heard of him."
You misunderstand, the legal battle isn't worth it until they win because the battle will be expensive as fuck and if they lose it never needed to have money spent on it.
Politics are a marathon not a sprint and a big part of that is knowing when to fight and lose money for a pyrrhic victory and when the ends don't justify the means.
Ah yes, money first, constitution and democracy second. How American of you.
No one is saying that, I'm saying not every fight is worth the expense, some are some aren't she you need to have reserves for the ones that are.
Most of these hillbillies probably barely have the money to campaign, let alone hire a defense team to make a case of it in court. Just say, nah, You're ineligible to run. And as if the courts don't have ridiculous, frivolous cases all the time anyway
Indeed, so why spend money fighting a non issue when there are actual issues to spend on. Doesn't matter if its frivolous or not it will cost money to pursue.
To uphold the constitution!?
These courts no concerns ever burning taxpayer dollars on much less pressing issues all the time!
I guarantee that if they don't stand up now, it has nothing to do with legal cost. It has absolutely everything to do with fear of backlash from ludicrous dipshits, and having to have the spine to tell them to fucking deal with it
You can do that without throwing money into bottomless holes.
And your solution is that its a waste but they're already doing it so waste more time and money? Not reform but instead keep doing it but just do it the way you'd like.
That's also an issue yes, but again throwing away time and money on a non issue only to get death threats from fuckwits is not at all worth it. Spend your time and money on it boss, no one is stopping you and to borrow a few words "I guarantee that if ~~they~~ you don't stand up now, it has nothing to do with legal cost."
Seeing as how there were numerous Trump supporters already in office and supporting the insurrectionists before and during Jan. 6, this isn't all that surprising.
Given that we still don't have enough people in Congress willing to go against Cheeto Mussolini's wishes, it's also unsurprising that nothing has been done about it yet. Disappointing, but unsurprising.
How do those fucking reich-wing imbeciles reconcile this with the lie that all the insurgents were AnTiFa?
Or do they even try? Is this just a classic example of doublethink?
You got it.
THESE were the ONLY ones NOT Antifa or the FBI at the Tourist Visit that was NOT violent but also we need to arrest ANTIFA for being VIOLENT!
Maybe I’m tired, or there is some punctuation missing, but I’m having a real hard time comprehending this sentence.
That cunt should be legally made to have that stupid fucking hat sewn onto his head without anesthetic.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Former Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn, who faced down a crowd of rioters, is running to replace retiring Democratic Rep. John Sarbanes of Maryland.
NBC News has identified seven candidates who are running for elected office this year who were at the Capitol on Jan. 6 or attended the Trump “Stop the Steal” rally that preceded it, plus three more who ran but have already lost in primaries.
In an interview with NBC Boston, Riddle said that he planned to challenge Democratic Rep. Annie Kuster but he “thought Ann was a state representative.” When told that she was a member of Congress, he replied: “Oh, well, I guess I have to run for that then.”
Kern attended the “Stop the Steal” rally and was outside the Capitol while rioters entered it; multiple news outlets identified him in video of the day posted online.
Kern had an ethics complaint filed against him for allegedly using campaign funds for his travel expenses to attend the Jan. 6 rally, but he has not responded to requests for a reply, the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office said.
Phillip Sean Grillo, who was convicted of five charges, including one felony for his actions that day, lost the race to be the Republican candidate in the special election to replace George Santos in New York’s 3rd District.
The original article contains 1,607 words, the summary contains 221 words. Saved 86%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!