Basic Constitutional Law - eviltoast
  • joemo@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Forgive me for being dumb, but I only see the 3 requirements for being president Link

    Be a natural-born citizen of the United States Be at least 35 years old Have been a resident of the United States for 14 years

    Can someone point out what I’m missing?

    • nyahlathotep@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      85
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      See the 14th Amendment to the constitution, added after the civil war. It prevents citizens who previously swore an oath to support the constitution (so any federal employee, person in the military, or federally elected politician including President), and who engaged in insurrection against the United States from being eligible to hold public office.

      Edit: We really shotgunned you there, didn’t we 🦆

      Edit 2: Added info about oath

      • joemo@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Hey I appreciate the quick answers! Woke up recently and didn’t feel like searching so thanks for doing the hard work for me.

      • Daniel F.@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        11 months ago

        I’m curious why that only prevents people who have sworn an oath. Why should anyone who has engaged in insurrection be able to hold office? Forgive me if this is a dumb question, I am only half awake.

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          They didn’t want to completely disenfranchise southerners after the Civil War. There’s an argument to be made that they should have, but I can see their logic in not wanting to antagonize people while trying to put the country back together.

          At the time, people were a lot more loyal to their states than to the US as a whole, so it would have been a lot like punishing patriots for fighting for their country.

        • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Probably because they’ve proven that they won’t follow the oath they swore. So if they get reelected and swear the same oath (that they’ve already broken once) again, we already know they can’t be trusted to uphold it. So we don’t even give them the opportunity to be sworn in a second time.

          But since an unsworn person never violated an oath of office, they’re still an unknown and could potentially be trusted. It’s a sort of “innocent until proven guilty” situation, where the person hasn’t broken any oath so by default they’re assumed to be trustworthy. But as soon as you break that oath, you’re not going to be trusted again.

          • phx@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            Another situation I could see is if you had a massive power grab by an authoritarian group and a subsequent insurrection that actually led to them being overgrown. Wouldn’t make sense to disqualify the ones that fought for it.

      • Forbidden_Acadia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        Is it any citizen or just ones who previously held office? Just curious, it sounds to me like it is directed at people who previously or currently hold office.

        • nyahlathotep@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          11 months ago

          It says anyone who had previously taken an oath to support the constitution, which is pretty much any federal government employee, including civilian workers, members of the military, members of Congress, members of the Executive Branch (including the president), members of the Judicial Branch, etc.

        • teft@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          11 months ago

          Emphasis mine. Below is the text of section 3 of the 14th amendment. It disqualifies anyone who has previously taken an oath to support the constitution who engages in insurrection or rebellion against the constitution.

          Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      11 months ago

      14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

      Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office

      No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

      This is why Trump was taken off the ballot in Colorado. The court found that he engaged in insurrection.

      • joemo@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        Thank you! Makes sense there is something about it, but I didn’t search hard enough. Should have looked closer at that court case.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          Most people don’t know the Constitution very well even if they’ve read it before (and most people haven’t). So I don’t blame you for not knowing.

      • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months 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
          ·
          11 months 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
            ·
            11 months 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
              ·
              11 months 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
                ·
                11 months 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
                  11 months 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
                    ·
                    11 months 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.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress m****ay by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

      14th amendment section 3, emphasis mine