I didn’t read either link the person you replied to posted, and I have no opinion on the issue itself (whether it’s actually likely or just a conspiracy theory) - but I think the implication here is that they’ll be able to do it whether a real crime happened or not, if Trump’s removal stands. While Trump’s crime is undoubtedly real, he hasn’t been convicted for it - and that’s what sets the precedent they could use here against Biden. I have my doubts those attempts would survive in most courts. Additionally, I doubt “enemies” is a term that’s defined in any federal statute, which leaves the phrase “…or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” extremely open to interpretation.
Which is fair. Trump has indeed not been convicted of the crime. The court of public opinion would disagree but until a legal decision is handed down we should presume innocent until proven guilty.
As for the links I found the first to be about a House resolution for impeachment based around Biden’s handling of the withdrawal from Afghanistan and some comments he had as Vice president related to it. The second is an opinion piece conflating the withdrawal with giving aid to an enemy. As the withdrawal provided the Taliban an opportunity to return to power. Nevermind that Trump started it in the first place. It seems the GOP “plan” is to throw shit at the wall and see what sticks.
There are plenty of things to dislike Biden for but this certainly ain’t one of them
The people who this amendment was directly intended to bar were not convicted of underlying crimes to make them viable subjects. The courts will review these actions, but there’s nothing in the amendment that either directly or indirectly requires insurrectionists be convicted of a crime.
While Trump’s crime is undoubtedly real, he hasn’t been convicted for it
There is no protection of life, liberty, or property that hinges on “conviction”. The right is to “due process”.
OJ was deprived of “life, liberty, or property” not through conviction in a criminal court, but by order of a civil court. He was never convicted. He was found liable.
Trump was afforded all of the rights of the accused in Colorado, which ruled against him in a civil hearing. He wasn’t convicted of the criminal act of insurrection, but he was found to be liable for having committed insurrection. He was afforded due process.
This all assumes that “running for president” is a “liberty” afforded to individuals. The constitution does not declare such a right. Quite the contrary, the constitution empowers state legislatures to enact the rules for their own elections, including determining who should appear on ballots.
So taking your last paragraph at face value, you’re of the opinion that states could legally (in theory) remove Biden from their ballots for pretty much any arbitrary reason, as long as that reason was enshrined in state law by the state legislature or state constitution?
Where in my arguments does the “arbitrary” criterion arise?
The “reason” for Trump’s removal didn’t arise from state law, state legislature, or state constitution. The “reason” arose from the 14th Amendment. State law provided the means and method, by dictating who is charged with making the executive decision and the process of judicial review of that decision.
Generally speaking, yes, the secretary of state who is charged with determining who will and will not appear on the ballot can determine that Biden does or does not qualify for ballot access. Their determination is subject to judicial review: the candidate and/or the voters and/or any other party with “standing” can sue to reverse that decision.
I didn’t read either link the person you replied to posted, and I have no opinion on the issue itself (whether it’s actually likely or just a conspiracy theory) - but I think the implication here is that they’ll be able to do it whether a real crime happened or not, if Trump’s removal stands. While Trump’s crime is undoubtedly real, he hasn’t been convicted for it - and that’s what sets the precedent they could use here against Biden. I have my doubts those attempts would survive in most courts. Additionally, I doubt “enemies” is a term that’s defined in any federal statute, which leaves the phrase “…or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” extremely open to interpretation.
Which is fair. Trump has indeed not been convicted of the crime. The court of public opinion would disagree but until a legal decision is handed down we should presume innocent until proven guilty.
As for the links I found the first to be about a House resolution for impeachment based around Biden’s handling of the withdrawal from Afghanistan and some comments he had as Vice president related to it. The second is an opinion piece conflating the withdrawal with giving aid to an enemy. As the withdrawal provided the Taliban an opportunity to return to power. Nevermind that Trump started it in the first place. It seems the GOP “plan” is to throw shit at the wall and see what sticks.
There are plenty of things to dislike Biden for but this certainly ain’t one of them
The people who this amendment was directly intended to bar were not convicted of underlying crimes to make them viable subjects. The courts will review these actions, but there’s nothing in the amendment that either directly or indirectly requires insurrectionists be convicted of a crime.
There is no protection of life, liberty, or property that hinges on “conviction”. The right is to “due process”.
OJ was deprived of “life, liberty, or property” not through conviction in a criminal court, but by order of a civil court. He was never convicted. He was found liable.
Trump was afforded all of the rights of the accused in Colorado, which ruled against him in a civil hearing. He wasn’t convicted of the criminal act of insurrection, but he was found to be liable for having committed insurrection. He was afforded due process.
This all assumes that “running for president” is a “liberty” afforded to individuals. The constitution does not declare such a right. Quite the contrary, the constitution empowers state legislatures to enact the rules for their own elections, including determining who should appear on ballots.
So taking your last paragraph at face value, you’re of the opinion that states could legally (in theory) remove Biden from their ballots for pretty much any arbitrary reason, as long as that reason was enshrined in state law by the state legislature or state constitution?
Where in my arguments does the “arbitrary” criterion arise?
The “reason” for Trump’s removal didn’t arise from state law, state legislature, or state constitution. The “reason” arose from the 14th Amendment. State law provided the means and method, by dictating who is charged with making the executive decision and the process of judicial review of that decision.
Generally speaking, yes, the secretary of state who is charged with determining who will and will not appear on the ballot can determine that Biden does or does not qualify for ballot access. Their determination is subject to judicial review: the candidate and/or the voters and/or any other party with “standing” can sue to reverse that decision.