Pence Says Trump Shouldn’t Be Disqualified Even If CONVICTED — Says ‘That Needs To Be Left To The American People’
Pence Says Trump Shouldn’t Be Disqualified Even If CONVICTED — Says ‘That Needs To Be Left To The American People’
He. Tried. To. Kill. You.
You're viewing a single thread.
Didnt the American People give themselves a constitution and laws already for this reason?
14th amendment, section 3.
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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/
Only the second amendment of the US Constitution counts. Didn't you know that? Duh.
That not true! Racists also value something that resembles the first amendment, because they think it grants them a platform to be vile.
Ah, so he's essentially been disqualified at this point. I suppose a conviction will make that certain.
Unfortunately, innocence until guilt is proven means that merely accusing him of something, no matter how dire or how well backed is not sufficient, he remains innocent by default and thus not disqualified. The courts need to get moving.
Unfortunately, yes. As much as I would hate it he should still be innocent and able to run until he's convicted. Hopefully at least one of his many cases ends that way...
When Grand Juries have concluded that an official indictment is warranted, that's more than mere accusations. And "innocent until proven guilty" is not a legal construct; it's simply a moral standard (or verbatim reminder of local judges to their local jurors when considering information in hopes of limiting their prejudice on information demonstrated during trial).
5th amendment states that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".
A grand jury indictment determines whether there is probable cause to believe a person has committed a crime. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of that crime.
You can't treat a person as though they're guilty without due process which is a long way of saying innocent until proven guilty.
When Grand Juries have concluded that an official indictment is warranted, that’s more than mere accusations.
An indictment is literally a formal accusation. It's the process of charging them with a crime, which federally and in many states requires passing the outline of the prosecution's case by a grand jury for approval to prevent prosecutors from abusing their power (it's very rare for a case brought before a grand jury not to result in an indictment, since it's just the prosecutor arguing why they should be allowed to charge the accused with no defense permitted). Not all states even bother with a grand jury, and in those states anyone the prosecutor's office wants to charge is indicted.
Are you seriously trying to argue that charging someone with a crime is sufficient evidence that they committed the crime to place restrictions on them beyond those meant to prevent them from fleeing justice?
I feel that the timing here was always going to be a gamble, but is still very intentional.
Move too slowly and you can't secure a conviction by election day 2024.
Move too quickly, and you have a weaker case, and risk acquittal...and if you do manage to get a conviction, it gives Trump and his legal team time before the election to work out an appeal, overturn, etc.
I feel that these DAs were very, very deliberate in their timing (suggested by how they all got their grand jury indictments within a relatively narrow span of one another) to build as solid a case as they could while still allowing enough time for the trials to play out...but not leaving enough time for Trump's lawyers to try any maneuvering before the election.
Sort of like a team down by two points running their two minute drill, but intentionally slowing it down and calling plays designed to perfectly line up their kicker for a chip shot field goal to win...and suck up as much possible time as they can, ideally having the clock run to zero as the kick is in the air, giving the other team no chance to respond before the end of the game.
Personally I think anyone should be able to run for president. Regardless of your status. The Constitution is a flawed document. The 2A along with that point should not be in there.
That being said, if the US were to vote in that spot stain again, then they deserve what they get. Just unfair the rest of the world has to deal with it.
Trump didn't win through the popular vote though, he won in a close contest by taking a few states with massive voter suppression. While that was a technical win, it wasn't the US getting what it deserved when most people did not vote for him and even more people likely to vote against him were uunble to vote.
If he wins again it will be through further attempts to manipulate the vote.
That is all true.
And I'd go a step further. Many of us have voted in the minority our entire lives. Not one president has represented my views.
I agree there are some issues with US voting but there also is a reason for their system. It allows lower populated areas to not bexome a minority and a bit more power over their future. I can understand the reason behind it to some degree.
Unless we voted in absolutely every issue, regardless if the size, democracy for practical reasons will never be perfect. That being said, your point is a completely different issue than being discussed. At minimum democracy should allow any person to run regardless of their status or how we feel about them. Ted Bundy should have been able to run but if he won, that would be very telling about the US voter.
See, this only works if you think everyone in the state is voting in lockstep. They aren't. Let's assume two choices. In a state with 100 people, 64 vote for A and 36 for B. In another state, with 1000 voters, 466 vote for A, 534 for B. A third state with 100 people, 53 vote for A and 47 for B.
That ends up, with an electoral college system, as 2 votes for A and 1 for B. A wins. HOWEVER, only 583 of 1200 people voted for A. 617 people voted for B. Not only are the wishes of the state with 1000 voters devalued, but the minority votes of the people in the smaller states are also devalued, because it is assumed that the STATE votes rather than the PERSON.
There is no reason to keep this system.
As someone in a lower populated state, my vote should not have more of an impact on the presidential election as that role represents the entire country like senators represent an entire state. Making each state a winner take all result makes it even worse, since voter suppression is far more effective in winner take all than if the electoral college votes were proportional to the state's vote.
While the concept of each state having equal standing is a reasonable approach, it has skewed so far from the initial implementation that it could be discarded from everything except the Senate and it would be a far better representation of the country as a whole while still giving small states a lot of power and influence.
It allows lower populated areas to not bexome a minority and a bit more power over their future.
At the risk of having an extended debate in the finer points of what some wigged weirdos were envisioning hundreds of years ago when they wrote this lauded document, I don't think that the founding fathers necessarily intended that...I think it's unlikely that they knew that some areas of the country would house as many people as multiple states in a single city in the long run.
Wanna know what the wigged weirdos thought?
Slavery.
Half the wigged weirdos had a bunch of people living in their states that they considered property and certainly weren't about to let them vote...but at the same time, they were doing the work of people who would have to live there if not for the slaves.
So they wanted to have their cake and eat it too: they wanted to have their slaves count as population when it came to representation but they weren't remotely considering those same people as population when it came to actual voters.
So you got the 3/5 compromise in it's appalling simplicity, and the electoral college which favored lower population (read: plantation) states by giving them outsized influence over national elections compared to what their actual population would normally warrant.
If that wasn't enough, the EC was also intended as an insurance policy for the elite: if the population ever overwhelmingly elected someone that the elites overwhelmingly opposed, the EC could serve as a last ditch firewall to protect their interests and simply ignore the will of the voters to choose their own leadership.
You'll notice that none of the purposes of the EC are in the interests of the people.
It allows lower populated areas to not bexome a minority and a bit more power over their future. I can understand the reason behind it to some degree.
Except that "areas" don't vote.
People do.
And the electoral college does nothing but penalize those who live in certain areas while rewarding others who live in different areas with wildly variable power behind their votes.
There's no reason an American living in Wyoming should be able to vote 7 times, but if they move to California they only get one vote...yet that is the system were currently living with...except that instead of describing it as discrete votes, the one single vote is just weighed 7x more, so that the system can deceive people into thinking it's fair and reasonable.
The US Constitution, which outlines many aspects including what the three branches of government are, also outlines disqualifiers for consideration.
You cannot just cherry-pick which few words you like and discard everything else! It's an all-or-nothing thing (as stipulated by the Founding Fathers/signatories and the croonies who've adulterated its intentions/meanings over the years).