Colorado Supreme Court kicks Trump off ballot

submitted by hfxB0oyA from (bbc.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

They wrote that section into the Fourteenth Amendment to prevent Confederate politicians from holding office in the United States. There was no expectation that they be "convicted of a crime." They were Confederates, thus they were excluded.

The question that's going to come before the SCOTUS is: what constitutes an insurrection? Obviously the Civil War did, because that's specifically what the framers of the Amendment were thinking about, but what else constitutes an insurrection? Define it.

I don't envy John Roberts the task.

[–]NastyWetSmear 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

There may have been no expectation of conviction, but this isn't the civil war era where there is open warfare and two cut and dried sides and one has just been victorious over the other. Even if we were to accept that explanation - Trump wasn't involved in the civil war and isn't a Confederate solider, so that application can't apply to him.

He isn't currently guilty of an insurrection. He's accused, but the nature of what is and isn't an insurrection isn't, yet, relevant. This isn't war time. The American states can't decide that the due process that is meant to be offered to all Americans doesn't apply here. It's essentially election tampering, isn't it?

Look, I'm no American legal expect, I shouldn't speak with authority, but if the courts aren't putting down the first argument as: "We haven't yet confirmed that he's done anything wrong", that's scary.

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

What I think you're missing is that the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" refers specifically to whether the government can lock someone in prison or levy fines against them.

Citizens don't have to be found guilty of a crime to be fired, or declared ineligible for something, or basically to suffer any number of consequences other than "locked up or fined." For example, the military could declare someone ineligible for service because they can't do ten push-ups. That's not a crime; they're simply ineligible.

The legal question of "Is Donald Trump ineligible for office because he participated in an insurrection," strange as it may seem, is completely distinct from the legal question of "Did Donald Trump commit a crime."

[–]NastyWetSmear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No, I don't believe that's the case. You're not talking about someone firing him, you're talking about a branch of the government refusing to acknowledge his run for president. That's the government enforcing a punishment for a crime he has yet to be proven guilty of. This isn't a private company saying: "Sorry, Jim. We can't have these accusations hanging over us as a company.", this is a State saying: "You are no longer able to run for president."

Hell, even in the other case, he'd still have grounds to sue for unfair dismissal once he was innocent.

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

But ineligibility isn't legally considered a punishment. For example, Neil deGrasse Tyson is not eligible to practice medicine or law. Elon Musk is not eligible to run for President. David Harbour is not eligible to join the Marines. None of these are punishments; none of these people have been convicted of a crime.

And of course Donald Trump can and will file lawsuits regarding this decision.

[–]NastyWetSmear 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes it is! This is something he is perfectly eligible to do, has done in the past, has made it clear he intends to do again and is, at least on the surface, the backbone of the American election system. They are removing him from that as a punishment for a crime he hasn't been convicted of. This would be like California saying Neil deGrasse Tyson can't be an astrophysicist because someone accused him of something. There's a direct correlation between the accusation, unfounded or not, and a government body deciding to punish him for it.

Anyway, like I mentioned in the other thread, I'm going to stop talking about this one. I'm not American, so I shouldn't spend so much time being amazed by how their country is being run. Thanks for the conversation though.