• Jezebelley3D@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    It absolutely blows my mind that a twice impeached insurrectionist single term president is not only running again but allowed to.

    What the fuck is wrong with the USA?

    • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      (Copied from another post)

      The thing is, the 14th Amendment, Section 3 isn’t vague on this point - he IS disqualified:

      No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

      Look at the wording - it’s clearly intended to be an automatic disqualification. The only way you could possibly arrive at the conclusion that the Office of the President is exempt from this section is by jumping through frankly absurd and facile semantic hoops.

      But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

      Pointedly, the only way Congress should be involved (per the relevant section) is in rescinding the disqualification.

        • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          (Also copied from another post)

          Well, they’re only appointed for life, and they did somewhat recently vastly broaden the scope of the 2nd Amendment, and political violence is on the rise, so I wouldn’t be shocked if one or more people decided enough is enough and conducted a “citizen’s kinetic impeachment”, as it were.

          Regardless of how things ultimately turn out, things are definitely 10/10 fucky, and I absolutely hate it.

      • Zippy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Again it did not pass the 2/3 rule. That is critical to make it lawful. I don’t know why that is so hard to understand.

        I get it. Trump is a sedacious bastards. But regardless they have yet to convict him of that in the legal court or within the Senate. Ones of those needs to have happened and it has not.

        And by the way it is not uncommon. Was done to Clinton for what amounted to a private matter but again did not pass the Senate and thus it did not effect his access to office. As it shouldn’t have in his case.

    • Zippy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      He hasn’t been convicted of sedation yet and the impeachments did not pass the Senate for removal. Basically that is like an acquittal.

      Agree what is wrong with the US but legally it is still up in the air.

        • Zippy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          I agree with that. Shouldn’t still be legally up in the air. Proven in public opinion, sure. Legal proven no.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Basically that is like an acquittal.

        Not really. He has still been impeached, it’s just his own party chose not to remove him from office over the impeachment.

        • Zippy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Yes we knew that. The point is legally he has been acquitted. Fair or not he has not been officially convicted and thus this can not be used to eliminate him from running for office.

          I know people here don’t agree with it. I wish he was convicted myself. But it’s is not grey. It is ‘not really’. Your either convicted or acquitted and he was the latter because that is how the constitution works. Now use your vote should it come to that.

          • TWeaK@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            But it isn’t an acquittal, and he has officially been impeached.

            It’s more like he was found guilty but then given no punishment at sentencing.

            • Zippy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              That absolutely is not what impeachments is. Look it up. Impeachments is equivalent to charging someone only. It then basically comes to the house to investigate it and decide if he is guilty. Guilty meaning removed from office. I don’t understand why people do not know this.

              Ya I think he is slimy and likely should have been revoved from office. That that takes 2/3 of the Senate vote. But not getting 2/3 of the vote does not mean he is innocent.