Running for President doesn't immunize you from criminal prosecutions. The topic of this thread is an issue two conservative law professors wrote an article on, so I'm not sure how anybody could attribute it to the Biden administration.
Luttig et. al aren't claiming some "unilateral authority" decision-making, or any formal legal authority at all. They simply made a public argument for the public and for those with political/legal power. Maybe voters, or a rival campaign or the RNC sues in court based on this argument?
He's only the leading candidate of one of the two major political parties, because the People have elevated him to that status. As I mentioned before, regardless of how you feel about Trump or his supporters, that he still pulls this much support after two impeachments and 91 felony indictments is alarming. And I'm sorry, but 75,000,000 American voters aren't "cult followers". They're supporting him for reasons far different than his 'cult of personality'. In fact, I would argue at least half of them don't even like Trump as a person.
If crimes barred presidents you’d probably have to go back to Calvin Coolidge to find one who was fit to serve.
I'm not betting money on a civil war happening in the next 10 years, but if you don't think the seeds are there, you're not seeing the full scope of the divide that exists in this country.
If Covid had not happened, Trump wins easily. For right or for wrong, all of the exceptions for voting during Covid helped Biden. Even with Covid and everything Trump said during Covid, if the rules for voting had been the same as they were in 2016, Trump wins.
I get that but taking it a step forward, who determines whether or not he is eligible? Does each individual state do it?
That is a question for the legal experts to discuss in any detail, but I'd imagine that it would be state election officials who could seek to keep him off the ballot under 14a...for which it would be challenged in court and thus decided by the courts.
Doesnt mean we have to pretend none of it exists. I think the fact that you’re trying to pretend this article exists in a vacuum says a lot.
Yes they are, they’re claiming that this provision of the 14th Amendment is self-executing, no guilty verdict or conviction in an impeachment or criminal trial is necessary, and their interpretation is the correct interpretation which legally bars Trump from running for President without any sort of process or vote. If that’s not a “unilateral authority,” I don’t know what is.
"Trump is forcing us to act like a banana republic." I hope you have a better point than this if you're ready for this to be the new normal. If you think this ends with Trump, you have a whole other thing coming.
Trump one by a sliver with Democrats staying home for Hillary. No way he wins. Covid motivated many on the right to vote against people who wanted to take reasonable health steps. No one blamed Trump for unemployment and GDP issues.. it was accepted that it was covid driven. Only righties are missing perspective in those situations. He was voted out because he is unpopular.
Federal judge sets Trump trial date in election interference case "U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan's decision sets the trial in the middle of the Republican presidential primaries and the day before Super Tuesday." It'S nOt ElEcTiOn InTeRfErEnCe GuYs. It'S a MyStErY wRaPpEd In An EnIgMa.
I’m all for politicians that flagrantly break the law being held legally responsible. What a weird thing for someone to worry about.
What I’m missing from the article is ultimately someone somewhere has to make an authoritative judgement as to whether someone like Trump is disqualified under such a clause. Who is that, the courts? Is the process someone filed suit and the courts judge, and in this case it probably goes to SCOTUS? While I think it is self evident that Trump should not be eligible there has to be a logical process, otherwise on the flip side you may get someone like G715 who asserts that all Democrats meet such a criteria.
The fact that people like you are supporting this is sheer lunacy. Just call it what it is, election interference. This is 1,000 times more effective than anything the Russians did in 2016.
Don't understand the argument, barring has already happened Cowboys for Trump co-founder barred from public office over Jan. 6. Cowboys for Trump co-founder barred from public office over Jan. 6 A New Mexico judge ordered the co-founder of Cowboys for Trump removed from public office Tuesday over his presence at the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6 riot. State District Judge Francis Mathew removed Otero County Commissioner Cuoy Griffin from his elected position "effective immediately" and banned him from seeking further public office, citing the 14th Amendment's clause barring those who have taken oaths to uphold the Constitution from holding federal or state office if they have engaged “in insurrection or rebellion."
That's not what you were arguing before and you seem to be mixing things up a bit. You wrote that "nobody gave individual members of the Federal Society (or Judge Luttig) binding legal authority to unilaterally settle issues of Constitutional Law" which is to say, you suggested that they (Luttig et al.) assumed that they had some binding, unilateral legal authority. This is simply untrue. Their argument is suggesting that the constitution itself is providing binding legal authority, which is what they meant section 3 being "self-executing" IOW, the constitution doesn't require a conviction or court to decide whether a candidate is disqualified, i.e. election officials in states can decide it based on 14a. Personally don't know the merit of that argument and won't argue it but it doesn't seem to me that it would be wise for election officials/states to put it to the test, given the politics involved. Same time, candidates for office are not necessarily entitled to having a prior conviction or impeachment being the standard for disqualification.
