Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (20) |
Author: albaby1 SILVER
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 84346 
Subject: Re: The 14th yet again
Date: 02/12/24 9:42 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 2
And why would being convicted of that crime disqualify him from running for president again? There are various cases here: he could have been quickly impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate before Jan 20 (that would disqualify him); convicted by the DOJ after Jan 20, but before the primaries; during the primaries; after becoming the GOP nominee; convicted in a state court and disqualified under the 14th. In that last case, assuming Trump appealed it, why would SCOTUS be more likely to rule that Trump is disqualified everywhere? Shouldn't the "voters decide" regardless? They didn't discuss the definition of insurrection much at all during the recent appeal hearing.

Someone who has engaged in insurrection while an officer of the United States is disqualified from holding office. If we assume (arguendo) that this applies to the Presidency, it seems clear that someone who has been tried and convicted for the federal crime of insurrection would have been sufficiently proven to have met the standard for that disqualification. So if Trump had engaged in activities that led to his trial and conviction of that crime, that would be a set of circumstances where he would be disqualified. Hence, my answer to your original question.

Part of the reason that nearly every Justice was skeptical of a state-by-state determination is because that's not what happened with Trump. Trump wasn't "convicted" in a state court. There was a collateral finding in a civil proceeding in a lawsuit between voters and the CO secretary of state. That type of proceeding, unlike a federal criminal trial, allows a lot of variation and "wiggle room" for different states to reach different conclusions. States can differ on the standard of review, their own interpretations of what constitutes "engaging" in an "insurrection," their evidentiary rules, the actual evidentiary record, etc.

The reason they didn't get into the definition of insurrection much at the appeal hearing is because it is exceptionally unlikely that the SCOTUS' decision will turn on whether Trump did or did not engage in insurrection. Rather, it's more likely to turn on questions of who makes that determination: states, Congress, federal courts, or the voters.
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to albaby1 here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (20) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community