161
Donald Trump is at war with the Constitution's insurrection clause—just 2 sentences in an amendment added after the Civil War (fortune.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/usa@lemmy.ml
27 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

"“If President Trump committed a heinous act worthy of disqualification, he should be disqualified for the sake of protecting our hallowed democratic system, regardless of whether citizens may wish to vote for him in Colorado,”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -8 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

Congrats on missing the point.

Also

There is only one way to peacefully change the constitution - and that's through an amendment.

So did you miss the part where I started the statement with “Should amend”?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    So everyone gets a ballot with their social security number on it or something?

    I know you jest, but chill dude. Not every reply is an attack.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    I know you jest, but chill dude.

    I was with you, but you completely lost me here. It's also the most bizarre place to rush in and take a side. There's some interesting points being made about whether your vote should have legal consequences, about what it means to be it be disqualified as a candidate versus whether that should manifest in the act of voting.

    And, of all the subjects, you're choosing to weigh in in favor of the idea that people should have a blank check to misinterpret statements without correction.

    Maybe it's the philosophy major in me, but this degree of casual disregard for truth, and viewing other people's desire for truth as an unwarranted overreaction, it leaves an awfully bitter taste. I go back and forth on how I feel about Lemmy as an offer of hope and improvement upon Reddit, and this is a moment where my optimism fades.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    If you are not jesting and seriously want to void the secrecy of the ballot and criminalize the act of voting...

    Then you are as much a threat to democracy and the constitution as Trump is and I really wouldn't mind if you went back to reddit and stayed there.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Not every jest requires a educational response. I’m still pretty sure you missed the point.

    edit:

    So everyone gets a ballot with their social security number on it or something?

    This seems like a question from someone completely unfamiliar with how some people in some states, such as felons, lose their right to vote, and not only can it be tracked, but some of them have been sent back to jail for voting even though they didn’t know they weren’t allowed to vote.

    Do I agree with that last part? Depends on the felon and the felony, but the point in this reply is that you don’t need ballots with social security numbers for such enforcement.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Writing in a candidate is still anonymous and should stay so.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Not in every state. Hawaii and other states send you a ballot with a unique number, associated with your voter registration, so you can track if your vote was counted properly, and for election officials to enforce various measures (as well as possible) like preventing someone from voting twice.

    Anyway, since it apparently needs explaining for you, the point of my original comment is that if someone casts a write-in vote for a convicted insurrectionist, who was removed from their ballot because the state or country judged the candidate guilty of insurrection activity to overthrow the government, then that voter should be considered complicit in or supportive of insurrection activity, and similarly disqualified from voting for a period of time.

    This is a personal opinion of something that will probably never happen, even though entirely possible, so since you’ve already identified it as a jest, take your own advice and chill about it.

    I’m done here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    They'll generally have a 2 envelope scheme if things are marked with a serial number. One envelope to track that you voted that contains a sealed envelope with your votes. Its unlawful to open the second envelope until they're unable to tell whose vote it is. Sure, you could figure out who someone voted for, but you are not allowed to.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago

    And since we’re talking about a proposed measure that will likely never come to pass, we can also imagine that if such an amendment were to be made, it could include a loophole allowing for ballots casting votes for disqualified insurrectionists to be investigated to find out who those voters are. Really not that big of a leap.

    Goddamn y’all are exhausting.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent