• Aghast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

    • IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

    • Pratai@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      He’s a twice impeached convicted rapist. What more do you need to keep him off the ballot?

      • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        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.

        • Frigid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Sure, but we’re talking about a job application… I don’t think the difference matters there.