▲ 512 ▼ The constitutional case that Donald Trump is already banned from being president (www.vox.com) submitted 3 years ago by HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world 78 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 12 points 3 years ago (1 child) I think, the problem is, somebody needs to challenge his elligibility in each and every state. Like this guy: https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/press-releases/judge-removes-couy-griffin-from-office-for-engaging-in-the-january-6-insurrection/ It's not an AUTOMATIC disqualification, it still needs to be adjudicated... At least in enough states to take away 270 electoral votes. permalink fedilink source hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnanimousStargazer@feddit.nl 7 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child) It's not an AUTOMATIC disqualification, it still needs to be adjudicated I might have mistaken what was written, but the scholars in the paper explicitly point out section 3 is 'self-executing'. Which means it does not require adjuducation. I was mistaken, see comment below. If it happened before, that doesn't mean it was necessary. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fubo@lemmy.world 5 points 3 years ago "Self-executing" there means that the Constitutional prohibition doesn't require Congress to pass a law on the subject. Some Constitutional provisions do require Congressional action to take effect. For instance, the income tax is authorized by the Sixteenth Amendment, but the amendment does not itself create an income tax; it just tells Congress that it may do so. (The original Constitution did not allow an income tax, because it expected the federal government to fund itself from tariffs and from tax assessments from the states, which were required to be proportional to population.) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] UnanimousStargazer@feddit.nl 7 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child) It's not an AUTOMATIC disqualification, it still needs to be adjudicated I might have mistaken what was written, but the scholars in the paper explicitly point out section 3 is 'self-executing'. Which means it does not require adjuducation. I was mistaken, see comment below. If it happened before, that doesn't mean it was necessary. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fubo@lemmy.world 5 points 3 years ago "Self-executing" there means that the Constitutional prohibition doesn't require Congress to pass a law on the subject. Some Constitutional provisions do require Congressional action to take effect. For instance, the income tax is authorized by the Sixteenth Amendment, but the amendment does not itself create an income tax; it just tells Congress that it may do so. (The original Constitution did not allow an income tax, because it expected the federal government to fund itself from tariffs and from tax assessments from the states, which were required to be proportional to population.) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] fubo@lemmy.world 5 points 3 years ago "Self-executing" there means that the Constitutional prohibition doesn't require Congress to pass a law on the subject. Some Constitutional provisions do require Congressional action to take effect. For instance, the income tax is authorized by the Sixteenth Amendment, but the amendment does not itself create an income tax; it just tells Congress that it may do so. (The original Constitution did not allow an income tax, because it expected the federal government to fund itself from tariffs and from tax assessments from the states, which were required to be proportional to population.) permalink fedilink source parent