There's some weird argument by his cult that it's not in the constitution that a president can't be in prison. It's a lot of mental gymnastics, ignoring the fact that he traitorously stole classified nuclear documents from the US government, along with subverting democracy in the RICO case with the 18 co-conspirators.
You're conflating two things here. There is absolutely nothing in the cotus that bars someone from becoming POTUS because they are in jail. Imo, there should not be, just like you should not lose your right to vote simply for being a felon.
However, there is something in the cotus that bard someone from being an officer of the state if they've been part of an insurrection. This, imo, should bar him, but I'm curious to see how the court cases play out.
Isn't being a traitor to the US (RICO case + stolen documents + Jan 6th insurrection) against the constitution though?
Treason is defined in the cotus, and none of the three things you posted would rise to the level of treason. The article even talks about it. Neither the Rico charges nor the classified documents, even with a conviction, would bar him from the presidency, but the jab 6th could make him ineligible.
Also, giving the documents to foreign officials would probably be as well, but not just having them.
Don't get me wrong, it should be disqualifying for any potential voter. . . but unless I'm missing something, this is certainly not treason and I don't know how it would disqualifying some other way.
Article III, Section 3, Clause 1:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
As we are not in declared or open war with Russia, it doesn't fall under the definition of treason. If "an adversary" would rise to the level of "enemy" then that would allow the state to broadly interpret the law to encompass plenty of actions as treason, as "aid and comfort" is so vague. And this is the opposite of the intent of the founding fathers, as they specifically define it to both show how important it is and to stop the abuse of it by the state, which they had seen plenty of times.
There's some weird argument by his cult that it's not in the constitution that a president can't be in prison. It's a lot of mental gymnastics, ignoring the fact that he traitorously stole classified nuclear documents from the US government, along with subverting democracy in the RICO case with the 18 co-conspirators.
You're conflating two things here. There is absolutely nothing in the cotus that bars someone from becoming POTUS because they are in jail. Imo, there should not be, just like you should not lose your right to vote simply for being a felon.
However, there is something in the cotus that bard someone from being an officer of the state if they've been part of an insurrection. This, imo, should bar him, but I'm curious to see how the court cases play out.
Isn't being a traitor to the US (RICO case + stolen documents + Jan 6th insurrection) against the constitution though?
This Chicago Tribune article goes into more detail.
Treason is defined in the cotus, and none of the three things you posted would rise to the level of treason. The article even talks about it. Neither the Rico charges nor the classified documents, even with a conviction, would bar him from the presidency, but the jab 6th could make him ineligible.
Also, giving the documents to foreign officials would probably be as well, but not just having them.
Don't get me wrong, it should be disqualifying for any potential voter. . . but unless I'm missing something, this is certainly not treason and I don't know how it would disqualifying some other way.
Article III, Section 3, Clause 1:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
It would be giving aid to an enemy surely.
As we are not in declared or open war with Russia, it doesn't fall under the definition of treason. If "an adversary" would rise to the level of "enemy" then that would allow the state to broadly interpret the law to encompass plenty of actions as treason, as "aid and comfort" is so vague. And this is the opposite of the intent of the founding fathers, as they specifically define it to both show how important it is and to stop the abuse of it by the state, which they had seen plenty of times.
Toss a coin to your witcher.