Well shouldn't the rule of law have a say? He hasn't been convicted of anything that would bar him from office.
He definitely should not be president but even he needs to face justice before states start arbitrarily banning him as a candidate.
If more states bar him I have no doubt red states will start banning Democrat candidates and it will start an endless tit for tat chain of retribution. The only way it can be stopped is if he is convicted and then removed from ballot.
The 14th amendment doesn’t require a conviction. It was written in the wake of the civil war to unilaterally prevent any confederates from holding office, without needing to convict each and every one of them. The entire purpose was to preempt the need for a conviction.
The insurrection clause says NOTHING about a conviction. It was written so as to apply to virtually every confederate soldier and other supporters of the confederacy, without needing to drag each and every one of them before a judge.
If more states bar him I have no doubt red states will start banning Democrat candidates
If those hypothetical democrats staged an insurrection against the United States in attempt to stay in office after they were voted out, I would support those red state's bans.
He’s a twice impeached convicted rapist. What more do you need to keep him off the ballot?
Not to mention a fraudster. His current trial in NY is just to determine damages for defrauding banks, insurers, etc.
For that to disbar from the office.
Fortunately, leading an insurrection does, and the post Civil War case law is very clear it doesn't need a criminal conviction.
This, btw, is common knowledge at this point, so if you see some idiot screeching about the "rule of law" just tell them this is the law.
he isnt a convicted rapist. he was found civilly liable for rape. there is a huge legal distinction there
Sure, but we're talking about a job application.. I don't think the difference matters there.
He is a rapist. It would not matter to the GOP if he had been criminally convicted so your point is pretty moot.
In is case- there is no difference.
Plus he's a traitor to the United States and it was televised for all to see.
Tell me you haven't read the constitution without telling me you haven't read the constitution...
I have no doubt red states will start banning Democrat candidates
They didn't ban him because they didn't like him. There's a constitutional amendment that precludes him from being on the ballot.
Well shouldn't the rule of law have a say? He hasn't been convicted of anything that would bar him from office.
He definitely should not be president but even he needs to face justice before states start arbitrarily banning him as a candidate.
If more states bar him I have no doubt red states will start banning Democrat candidates and it will start an endless tit for tat chain of retribution. The only way it can be stopped is if he is convicted and then removed from ballot.
The 14th amendment doesn’t require a conviction. It was written in the wake of the civil war to unilaterally prevent any confederates from holding office, without needing to convict each and every one of them. The entire purpose was to preempt the need for a conviction.
The insurrection clause says NOTHING about a conviction. It was written so as to apply to virtually every confederate soldier and other supporters of the confederacy, without needing to drag each and every one of them before a judge.
If those hypothetical democrats staged an insurrection against the United States in attempt to stay in office after they were voted out, I would support those red state's bans.
He’s a twice impeached convicted rapist. What more do you need to keep him off the ballot?
Not to mention a fraudster. His current trial in NY is just to determine damages for defrauding banks, insurers, etc.
For that to disbar from the office.
Fortunately, leading an insurrection does, and the post Civil War case law is very clear it doesn't need a criminal conviction.
This, btw, is common knowledge at this point, so if you see some idiot screeching about the "rule of law" just tell them this is the law.
he isnt a convicted rapist. he was found civilly liable for rape. there is a huge legal distinction there
Sure, but we're talking about a job application.. I don't think the difference matters there.
He is a rapist. It would not matter to the GOP if he had been criminally convicted so your point is pretty moot.
In is case- there is no difference.
Plus he's a traitor to the United States and it was televised for all to see.
Tell me you haven't read the constitution without telling me you haven't read the constitution...
They didn't ban him because they didn't like him. There's a constitutional amendment that precludes him from being on the ballot.