• jimbolauski@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        11 months ago

        States don’t, mostly because racists Democratic states wouldn’t let POC vote.

      • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        11 months ago

        No. States don’t have full autonomy. They have regulations as well as everyone else. SCOTUS has final say if the law is constitutional.

        Not a lawyer but the issue I see he hasn’t been convicted of anything close to rebellion.

        • PizzaMan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Not a lawyer but the issue I see he hasn’t been convicted of anything close to rebellion.

          The 14th specifies no requirement for conviction. And historical precedent* has been set such that it does not require conviction.

            • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              11 months ago

              Autocorrect is the bane of the world. Sometimes it helps. Sometimes it’s a lethal weapon.

          • VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Is there precedent? I’m not aware of anyone else who’s been banned from elections for insurrection, but this also isn’t my area. I kind of assumed it would follow the ‘innocent until proven guilty in a court of law’ thing, but I also don’t know how much of a hard and fast rule that is for this type of crime.

            I am genuinely curious. I kind of assumed he would never actually be charged and the amendment could never be invoked as a result.

          • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            11 months ago

            Not sure what you mean by historical presidents. Did you mean precedence ? Prior cases we people who actually formed a new country. I’m not aware of anything other cases where there was a riot alone. Can you cite a prior case where they were not in a state that rebelled ?

            • PizzaMan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              I do not accept your attempt to move the goal posts. Your claim was about whether conviction was necessary. It is not.

              • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                11 months ago

                It’s not moving the goalpost.

                I suspect because he was never part of a rebellion, has not been charged with it or convicted of it, scotus will reject the courts opinion. The previous cases didn’t need a conviction because it was considered de facto

          • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            29
            ·
            11 months ago

            I dislike Trump. I met him in person when he was a liberal democrat. He’s not a conservative. That said, I do not think he tried to overthrow the government and I agree. It’s a dangerous precedent. Let the voters decide. I think of Trump had left with grace, he’d stomp Biden in the next election. Instead he’s thrown a childish shit fit and that turns a lot of people off. I won’t vote for Biden but that doesn’t mean I’lol vote for Trump. In 2016 I didn’t vote because both were garbage.