3 ms·

From the article: ...a conviction would be beside the point. The disqualification clause operates independently of any such criminal proceedings and, indeed, al

From the article: ...a conviction would be beside the point. The disqualification clause operates independently of any such criminal proceedings and, indeed, also independently of impeachment proceedings and of congressional legislation. The clause was designed to operate directly and immediately upon those who betray their oaths to the Constitution, whether by taking up arms to overturn our government or by waging war on our government by attempting to overturn a presidential election through a bloodless coup.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
In a "rule of law" country, you kind of need something more than "he's guilty and we all know it". Otherwise, a bunch of us can say "labrador is guilty, and we all know it, so he can't run for office", and you have no recourse, whether or not you're guilty. And who would say that he's not allowed to run? Who would make the official pronouncement? The Federal Election Commission? Do you think this can happen without it turning into a Supreme Court case? Do you think the Supreme Court is just going to say, "yes, you're right, he can't run"? Give them as much reason as you can to agree with you. More, even if he is guilty, it's important that you prove it to his supporters. Sure, some won't listen, no matter what proof you give. Some will, though, and it's important that you give them reason to get off the Trump train. If you don't, you'll just radicalize them when you say that he can't run again.
- dllthomas 3y ago
  Luttig suggests it will be up to the Secreteries of State in the various states to determine eligibility (just as for age and other qualifications), and then whatever decision they make it will be challenged, so ultimately it will probably have to be proven in court, albeit (if what the courts decide is other than "convict him first") to a "preponderance of evidence" standard rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt." I'm personally undecided on what I think about it all.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago

In a "rule of law" country, you kind of need something more than "he's guilty and we all know it". Otherwise, a bunch of us can say "labrador is guilty, and we all know it, so he can't run for office", and you have no recourse, whether or not you're guilty. And who would say that he's not allowed to run? Who would make the official pronouncement? The Federal Election Commission? Do you think this can happen without it turning into a Supreme Court case? Do you think the Supreme Court is just going to say, "yes, you're right, he can't run"? Give them as much reason as you can to agree with you. More, even if he is guilty, it's important that you prove it to his supporters. Sure, some won't listen, no matter what proof you give. Some will, though, and it's important that you give them reason to get off the Trump train. If you don't, you'll just radicalize them when you say that he can't run again.

dllthomas 3y ago
Luttig suggests it will be up to the Secreteries of State in the various states to determine eligibility (just as for age and other qualifications), and then whatever decision they make it will be challenged, so ultimately it will probably have to be proven in court, albeit (if what the courts decide is other than "convict him first") to a "preponderance of evidence" standard rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt." I'm personally undecided on what I think about it all.