That, by itself, should be cause to remove the Texas Lt. Gov from office. He's literally committing sedition and violating his oath of office.
I’m sure Texas will get right on that, just as soon as they’ve removed accused felon Ken Paxton from office.
I recognize this is not the point of the post, but an accused felon doesn’t really make sense, since a felon is someone who is formally tried and convicted of a felonious crime.
Not sure if you're just arguing semantics here, but just for clarification in case you, or anyone else, is unsure why the other person might have said "accused felon", it is because Paxton was indicted for felony securities fraud back in 2015. He has used his political office to delay the trial since then, and has yet to be tried. 8 years and counting since the indictment without a trial. Hence, "accused felon".
Probably worth noting: His wife is a lawmaker, and he was impeached. But impeachment is only the first step in removing someone from office, just like indictment is the first step in a criminal trial. He was impeached by the House of Representatives, but it failed to pass in the senate because they voted along party lines. His wife refused to recuse herself from the vote.
They're like five year olds...
Most five year olds are far better behaved.
The ones that have faced consequences for their actions, sure.
If he had any real reason to do so, it would be fine. Their problem is that "retalitation" is not a valid reason according to A14.
Radio hosts are saying failure to secure our border is an insurrection. I wish I was making it up.
That's just because they don't understand words with more than three syllables.
The more extreme republicans in Congress have been trying to mangle the definition to fit any politics or laws they don’t agree with. Their thinking is something like “this action will hurt the country, therefore people who support it are committing treason!” Of course one problem is they can’t tell the difference between facts and their beliefs/predictions. The other is of course that’s not the definition of treason, which specifically means a betrayal by colluding with an outside party, or an insurrection (you know, like their leader tried). And to normal people it’s obviously so dangerous to start claiming that politics and policies you don’t agree with are “treason”.
They don’t actually believe it’s treason; They’re trying to water down the word, so when Trump gets charged they can go “but look at all the “treason” the Dems have committed! The Dems haven’t been punished for it, so why should Trump?”
It’s a pretty common conservative tactic. Any time a prominent party member is going to be charged with something or have some big scandal break, they start rabble rousing and accusing liberals of whatever that particular key word or phrase is. All to dilute the actual meaning, and be able to go “it really isn’t that bad because the Dems do it all the time.” It doesn’t matter whether or not the democrats actually did any of it; All that matters is that republicans say they did, and conservative voters don’t fact-check them.
Right, that's true. One, they do things tit-for-tat because they're childish. I was actually just commenting somewhere else about the behavior/tactic you describe. I think it's also supposed to make their target audience think "well you're just accusing us of that because we accused you of it" or "that's projection", because these people do think like that and act like it in their own lives.
It also makes no moral sense because if say, my neighbor robbed a store, would that make it okay for me to rob a store? Of course not.
The right wingers are truly dumber than dirt, so I'm sure the base eat that nonsense right TF up.
Can a governor do that, though? From my limited knowledge of US political structure, a governor is part of the executive branch, and overruling electoral process can only be done my the judicial branch.
NAL, but almost certainly not. Governors don't get to decide who gets to appear on a ballot. Trump got removed, because he was found to have participated in an insurrection, a clear violation of the 14th Amendment.
If they want to remove Biden, they'll have to prove he did something disqualifying.
It's Texas. If they want to do it they'll just make up some shit.
Or do like Florida did and literally change the law so that it better suits their political machinations.
Sure. States have authority over their own ballot process. Would it be a civil lawsuit violating a person's Constitutional rights that are Constitutionally valid candidates? Could be.
But Dan Patrick is also "joking" for clout, otherwise, he'd just be disrespecting the US Constitution due to political agenda interference. Then again, the GOP is known to act as mere children in their politics and their followers are known to eat that shit right up to 'own the libs'.
I doubt he was joking.
Yeah, we all know he wasn't joking. He probably said it before somebody pointed out that it's against his state constitution to do so. And even if he already knew it was against the constitution, he could have said it just to garner support from his deplorables.
Lieutenant Governor. But .. still no.
Somehow shitheels always find a way to be shit, I'm afraid.
Technically all they can do is sign or veto bills, but the executive branch tends to work with the legislative on policy. It's why Presidents are credited/blamed for passing or not passing legislation during their terms.
Based on what? Donnie stoked an insurrection and plotted a coup. He's a criminal.
What did Biden do?
They're trying to water down the word "insurrection" as hard as they can so they can invoke the 14th. They haven't really thought it through much more than that, much like the current impeachment discussions.
They have been bleating for nearly three years now how "it wasn't really an insurrection", and I suppose that has not worked well, because most people continue to ignore them and their nonsense narratives about that. Now they are going to downplay the very term itself. Makes a certain kind of sense.
Loves his son, flaws and all
Yep, the Republicans know the password to get the presidency. Hunter2
No balls, he won't.
He can’t. Like all conservatives in politics- he knows nothing about the laws he swore to uphold.
There's a large swath of dumbassery in the current congress, especially the house and especially since maga, but don't make the mistake of thinking that all cons are dumb. Tons of the senators are lawyers. They aren't ignorant of the law, they're evil people using the law to line their pockets and make the world a worse place. Turtle McConnell couldn't have been grifting in politics for 137 years if he was stupid.
Trump is in politics and worshipped and protected by these people and he’s a complete buffoon. They’re idiots. Period.
He’s a useful idiot. The intelligent people on the conservative side understand that he’s a moron, it’s just with his popularity and lack of ethics, they can get him or his admin to do whatever corrupt shit they want. All that really matters to them is that whoever they run gets elected so they can steal/swindle money somehow.
So your argument is that bc one stupid populist got elected, none of the evil shit conservatives do is done intelligently?
If a person supports an idiot as a leader, they’re clearly not a smart person. So you can follow this simple rule:
It takes an idiot to elect an idiot.
Generalisations never hold up with even the most cursory of critiques.
States actually have quite a lot of control of who to put on their ballots. The prelude to the First Civil War had quite a lot of slaving garbage states, like Texas, only state to fight a war for slavery twice, not carrying Lincoln on the ballots, for example.
Colorado had to go through legal challenges and courts to remove a twice impeached rapist that’s hell bent on turning America into his own personal bank, but Texas can just remove people at will?
I think any state could, if they don't have a legal system in place for that or just don't care about it. Look at how some R states were/did change their laws so if they decide they don't like the outcome of an election (claiming it was 'rigged' or whatever), the legislature can just pick a winner themselves.
This is going to lead to a civil war. The Republicans simply cannot accept any consequences for their actions, or any failure of their insane message to win a majority vote, so they resort to insurrection.
Make no mistake — by not waiting for a conviction to remove Trump from the ballot, this is the Pandora’s box that has been opened. Just like impeachment, it will be used and abused.
He was convicted—of participating in an insurrection by incitement. That's what the judge before SCOCO ruled, and SCOCO finished the groundwork she laid out. He was therefore rightly ejected from the Colorado ballot under the 14th Amendment.
If you mean waiting for a conviction from his other cases, none of them would bar him from running. Felons are allowed to run for president.
But no matter what, Republicans will always use whatever they can to do damage. Justice shouldn't stop just because you know they'll continue to abuse the system as they have always done.
"Convicted" is not the correct term here. That would (outside of impeachment) require a criminal charge, followed by a guilty plea or a trial, and if a trial, a finding of guilty by the finder of fact (either a judge or a jury).
As a finding of fact, in both a Colorado district court, and in the Colorado Supreme Court, Trump "engaged in insurrection." I would need to look and see whether Michigan and Minnesota courts found the same fact.
None of the 14A S3 cases charge anyone with any crime.
Show me in the 14th Amendment Section 3 where it says you have to be convicted.
Here is the full text. Show me any mention of convicted:
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.
See “felony disenfranchisement” and “presumption of innocence”. Amendment 14 section 3 doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
Depriving someone of life, liberty, or property does require due process of law, which would be a "conviction".
But, I am failing to see how "running for president" can be considered a constitutionally protected right or privilege. Can you show me how this right or privilege comes into existence?
Depriving someone of life, liberty, or property does require due process of law, which would be a "conviction".
People are kicked off of voter rolls all the time without being convicted of anything. That's actually more egregious violation of rights if you ask me.
It’s right there in the constitution. It says anyone over age 35 who is a citizen and has lived here for 14 years.
To take this away from someone should require conviction of a crime. Just as taking away the right to vote does.
Look, I can’t stand Trump. But I also don’t believe in stripping rights from someone without being convicted first. It’s too slippery of a slope, and it could easily be abused otherwise.
The context, though, was in response to the Confederates returning to the Union. They did not need convictions for this to apply (it's not like they would try and convict every person that participated in the Civil War on the wrong side), so I don't know why you think it would start applying now.
Yeah I think the historical context and straightforward language make the intent of section 3 pretty clear.
When they wrote the 2nd Amendment there were only muskets. I don't know why we should start applying it to modern weapons. 😐
It’s right there in the constitution. It says anyone over age 35 who is a citizen and has lived here for 14 years.
The minimum criteria mentioned in the constitution do not strip the power of the state to run their own elections. The existence of those criteria do not negate the powers conveyed to the state. Any individual "rights" conveyed by those requirements are still subject to the powers conveyed to the state.
The constitution empowered the Colorado legislature to enact law declaring how its elections will be run. The Colorado legislature declared that the Colorado courts will be empowered to answer any questions arising under its electoral process.
A question of candidate eligibility was raised. The duly elected and constitutionally empowered legislature enacted law requiring the court to answer that question. Just because Trump doesn't like that answer does not mean his rights were infringed.
The minimum criteria mentioned in the constitution do not strip the power of the state to run their own elections.
Agreed. The Constitution states minimum requirements to be President. It definitely takes more than that to become President. The ruling out of Colorado doesn't even forbid him from being President. Obviously he could still win enough states without Colorado and this ruling doesn't forbid electoral delegates from voting for him either. If a candidate misses a deadline even it could keep them off the ballot. Being listed on one is not a right.
If the court was not able to find a factual basis for the requested relief then they would simply deny the application/complaint. The court reviewed the facts and granted the requested relief. Why does a different court need to rule on the facts before this court can act?
Yeah, except there was very detailed reasoning that went along with that ruling. Permitting crybaby ass Texas officials to just...follow their feelings would be insulting to everyone.
They did have a trial - that's how it got appealed
Being ineligible to be president is not a punishment for a crime. No criminal conviction is required.
The insurrection clause was used after the Civil War exactly as intended, to prevent treasonous filth from running for office despite not being convicted in criminal courts.
Ok, go to court and do it, or shut the fuck up.
That, by itself, should be cause to remove the Texas Lt. Gov from office. He's literally committing sedition and violating his oath of office.
I’m sure Texas will get right on that, just as soon as they’ve removed accused felon Ken Paxton from office.
I recognize this is not the point of the post, but an accused felon doesn’t really make sense, since a felon is someone who is formally tried and convicted of a felonious crime.
Not sure if you're just arguing semantics here, but just for clarification in case you, or anyone else, is unsure why the other person might have said "accused felon", it is because Paxton was indicted for felony securities fraud back in 2015. He has used his political office to delay the trial since then, and has yet to be tried. 8 years and counting since the indictment without a trial. Hence, "accused felon".
Probably worth noting: His wife is a lawmaker, and he was impeached. But impeachment is only the first step in removing someone from office, just like indictment is the first step in a criminal trial. He was impeached by the House of Representatives, but it failed to pass in the senate because they voted along party lines. His wife refused to recuse herself from the vote.
They're like five year olds...
Most five year olds are far better behaved.
The ones that have faced consequences for their actions, sure.
If he had any real reason to do so, it would be fine. Their problem is that "retalitation" is not a valid reason according to A14.
Radio hosts are saying failure to secure our border is an insurrection. I wish I was making it up.
That's just because they don't understand words with more than three syllables.
The more extreme republicans in Congress have been trying to mangle the definition to fit any politics or laws they don’t agree with. Their thinking is something like “this action will hurt the country, therefore people who support it are committing treason!” Of course one problem is they can’t tell the difference between facts and their beliefs/predictions. The other is of course that’s not the definition of treason, which specifically means a betrayal by colluding with an outside party, or an insurrection (you know, like their leader tried). And to normal people it’s obviously so dangerous to start claiming that politics and policies you don’t agree with are “treason”.
They don’t actually believe it’s treason; They’re trying to water down the word, so when Trump gets charged they can go “but look at all the “treason” the Dems have committed! The Dems haven’t been punished for it, so why should Trump?”
It’s a pretty common conservative tactic. Any time a prominent party member is going to be charged with something or have some big scandal break, they start rabble rousing and accusing liberals of whatever that particular key word or phrase is. All to dilute the actual meaning, and be able to go “it really isn’t that bad because the Dems do it all the time.” It doesn’t matter whether or not the democrats actually did any of it; All that matters is that republicans say they did, and conservative voters don’t fact-check them.
Right, that's true. One, they do things tit-for-tat because they're childish. I was actually just commenting somewhere else about the behavior/tactic you describe. I think it's also supposed to make their target audience think "well you're just accusing us of that because we accused you of it" or "that's projection", because these people do think like that and act like it in their own lives.
It also makes no moral sense because if say, my neighbor robbed a store, would that make it okay for me to rob a store? Of course not.
The right wingers are truly dumber than dirt, so I'm sure the base eat that nonsense right TF up.
Can a governor do that, though? From my limited knowledge of US political structure, a governor is part of the executive branch, and overruling electoral process can only be done my the judicial branch.
NAL, but almost certainly not. Governors don't get to decide who gets to appear on a ballot. Trump got removed, because he was found to have participated in an insurrection, a clear violation of the 14th Amendment.
If they want to remove Biden, they'll have to prove he did something disqualifying.
It's Texas. If they want to do it they'll just make up some shit.
Or do like Florida did and literally change the law so that it better suits their political machinations.
Sure. States have authority over their own ballot process. Would it be a civil lawsuit violating a person's Constitutional rights that are Constitutionally valid candidates? Could be.
But Dan Patrick is also "joking" for clout, otherwise, he'd just be disrespecting the US Constitution due to political agenda interference. Then again, the GOP is known to act as mere children in their politics and their followers are known to eat that shit right up to 'own the libs'.
I doubt he was joking.
Yeah, we all know he wasn't joking. He probably said it before somebody pointed out that it's against his state constitution to do so. And even if he already knew it was against the constitution, he could have said it just to garner support from his deplorables.
Lieutenant Governor. But .. still no.
Somehow shitheels always find a way to be shit, I'm afraid.
Technically all they can do is sign or veto bills, but the executive branch tends to work with the legislative on policy. It's why Presidents are credited/blamed for passing or not passing legislation during their terms.
The Republican party is a criminal conspiracy.
Based on what? Donnie stoked an insurrection and plotted a coup. He's a criminal.
What did Biden do?
They're trying to water down the word "insurrection" as hard as they can so they can invoke the 14th. They haven't really thought it through much more than that, much like the current impeachment discussions.
They have been bleating for nearly three years now how "it wasn't really an insurrection", and I suppose that has not worked well, because most people continue to ignore them and their nonsense narratives about that. Now they are going to downplay the very term itself. Makes a certain kind of sense.
Loves his son, flaws and all
Yep, the Republicans know the password to get the presidency. Hunter2
No balls, he won't.
He can’t. Like all conservatives in politics- he knows nothing about the laws he swore to uphold.
There's a large swath of dumbassery in the current congress, especially the house and especially since maga, but don't make the mistake of thinking that all cons are dumb. Tons of the senators are lawyers. They aren't ignorant of the law, they're evil people using the law to line their pockets and make the world a worse place. Turtle McConnell couldn't have been grifting in politics for 137 years if he was stupid.
Trump is in politics and worshipped and protected by these people and he’s a complete buffoon. They’re idiots. Period.
He’s a useful idiot. The intelligent people on the conservative side understand that he’s a moron, it’s just with his popularity and lack of ethics, they can get him or his admin to do whatever corrupt shit they want. All that really matters to them is that whoever they run gets elected so they can steal/swindle money somehow.
So your argument is that bc one stupid populist got elected, none of the evil shit conservatives do is done intelligently?
If a person supports an idiot as a leader, they’re clearly not a smart person. So you can follow this simple rule:
It takes an idiot to elect an idiot.
Generalisations never hold up with even the most cursory of critiques.
States actually have quite a lot of control of who to put on their ballots. The prelude to the First Civil War had quite a lot of slaving garbage states, like Texas, only state to fight a war for slavery twice, not carrying Lincoln on the ballots, for example.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_United_States_presidential_election_in_Texas
So let me get this straight:
Colorado had to go through legal challenges and courts to remove a twice impeached rapist that’s hell bent on turning America into his own personal bank, but Texas can just remove people at will?
I think any state could, if they don't have a legal system in place for that or just don't care about it. Look at how some R states were/did change their laws so if they decide they don't like the outcome of an election (claiming it was 'rigged' or whatever), the legislature can just pick a winner themselves.
This is going to lead to a civil war. The Republicans simply cannot accept any consequences for their actions, or any failure of their insane message to win a majority vote, so they resort to insurrection.
Make no mistake — by not waiting for a conviction to remove Trump from the ballot, this is the Pandora’s box that has been opened. Just like impeachment, it will be used and abused.
He was convicted—of participating in an insurrection by incitement. That's what the judge before SCOCO ruled, and SCOCO finished the groundwork she laid out. He was therefore rightly ejected from the Colorado ballot under the 14th Amendment.
If you mean waiting for a conviction from his other cases, none of them would bar him from running. Felons are allowed to run for president.
But no matter what, Republicans will always use whatever they can to do damage. Justice shouldn't stop just because you know they'll continue to abuse the system as they have always done.
"Convicted" is not the correct term here. That would (outside of impeachment) require a criminal charge, followed by a guilty plea or a trial, and if a trial, a finding of guilty by the finder of fact (either a judge or a jury).
As a finding of fact, in both a Colorado district court, and in the Colorado Supreme Court, Trump "engaged in insurrection." I would need to look and see whether Michigan and Minnesota courts found the same fact.
None of the 14A S3 cases charge anyone with any crime.
Show me in the 14th Amendment Section 3 where it says you have to be convicted.
Here is the full text. Show me any mention of convicted:
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.
See “felony disenfranchisement” and “presumption of innocence”. Amendment 14 section 3 doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
Depriving someone of life, liberty, or property does require due process of law, which would be a "conviction".
But, I am failing to see how "running for president" can be considered a constitutionally protected right or privilege. Can you show me how this right or privilege comes into existence?
People are kicked off of voter rolls all the time without being convicted of anything. That's actually more egregious violation of rights if you ask me.
It’s right there in the constitution. It says anyone over age 35 who is a citizen and has lived here for 14 years.
https://www.usa.gov/requirements-for-presidential-candidates
To take this away from someone should require conviction of a crime. Just as taking away the right to vote does.
Look, I can’t stand Trump. But I also don’t believe in stripping rights from someone without being convicted first. It’s too slippery of a slope, and it could easily be abused otherwise.
The context, though, was in response to the Confederates returning to the Union. They did not need convictions for this to apply (it's not like they would try and convict every person that participated in the Civil War on the wrong side), so I don't know why you think it would start applying now.
Yeah I think the historical context and straightforward language make the intent of section 3 pretty clear.
When they wrote the 2nd Amendment there were only muskets. I don't know why we should start applying it to modern weapons. 😐
The minimum criteria mentioned in the constitution do not strip the power of the state to run their own elections. The existence of those criteria do not negate the powers conveyed to the state. Any individual "rights" conveyed by those requirements are still subject to the powers conveyed to the state.
The constitution empowered the Colorado legislature to enact law declaring how its elections will be run. The Colorado legislature declared that the Colorado courts will be empowered to answer any questions arising under its electoral process.
A question of candidate eligibility was raised. The duly elected and constitutionally empowered legislature enacted law requiring the court to answer that question. Just because Trump doesn't like that answer does not mean his rights were infringed.
Agreed. The Constitution states minimum requirements to be President. It definitely takes more than that to become President. The ruling out of Colorado doesn't even forbid him from being President. Obviously he could still win enough states without Colorado and this ruling doesn't forbid electoral delegates from voting for him either. If a candidate misses a deadline even it could keep them off the ballot. Being listed on one is not a right.
If the court was not able to find a factual basis for the requested relief then they would simply deny the application/complaint. The court reviewed the facts and granted the requested relief. Why does a different court need to rule on the facts before this court can act?
Yeah, except there was very detailed reasoning that went along with that ruling. Permitting crybaby ass Texas officials to just...follow their feelings would be insulting to everyone.
They did have a trial - that's how it got appealed
Being ineligible to be president is not a punishment for a crime. No criminal conviction is required.
The insurrection clause was used after the Civil War exactly as intended, to prevent treasonous filth from running for office despite not being convicted in criminal courts.