• Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66690276

    In the riot’s aftermath, the US House of Representatives impeached the then-president on a charge of “incitement of insurrection”.

    Had the US Senate voted to convict him, it would have had the option to take a second, simple-majority vote to bar him from ever serving in office again.

    But that never happened: the Senate failed to reach the two-thirds majority required to convict Mr Trump, so there was no second vote.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      There is nothing in the 14th amendment that says that the Senate has to convict him to bar him from office. Or that any state does not have the right to control its own ballot.

      • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Senate has to convict him to bar him from office

        The Senate has to agree that he should be barred. That hasn’t happened.

        any state does not have the right to control its own ballot.

        A dangerous precedent if fascists get into power. Clear rules are needed.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The Senate has to agree that he should be barred. That hasn’t happened.

          There is nothing in the 14th Amendment which claims that, which is why Colorado took him off the ballot.

          A dangerous precedent if fascists get into power. Clear rules are needed.

          It has been the precedent since the beginning of the nation. The Secretary of State of each state sets the election rules in that state. That’s why some states have mail-in ballots and some states don’t.

          • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            As a counterpoint, Arizona Supreme Court and the Michigan Court of Appeals, decided that, in the absence of a criminal conviction, removal from the ballot was unnecessary.

            It can also be argued that as primaries are the party choosing who it wants to put forward as a candidate, and parties are private corporations, there is no constitutional relevancy at this stage.

            • jimbo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Colorado has a law that says you can’t be on the ballot (even in a primary) if you’re not “qualified” for the office, thus the Constitutional question is relevant in Colorado.

              • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                The problem is who decides on the (dis)qualification. In this case one federal judge disagreed with the conclusions of judges in two other states and the majority of the House of Representatives.