this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2023
1676 points (97.5% liked)

Political Memes

5234 readers
2608 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] joemo@lemmy.sdf.org 19 points 9 months ago (4 children)

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 81 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

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 18 points 9 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.

[–] danielf@aussie.zone 13 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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 18 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 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 15 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

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 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

An important point. This insurrection rule could be used by fascist to retain power.

[–] Forbidden_Acadia@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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 13 points 9 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 11 points 9 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.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 38 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 9 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 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 9 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.

[–] DrunkDragon@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The 14th amendment, section 3 disqualifies anyone that “engaged in insurrection or rebellion.” It was written after the Civil War to prevent former Confederates running for office. Many people believe it also applies to Donald Trump.

[–] joemo@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 9 months ago
[–] Captainvaqina@sh.itjust.works 4 points 9 months ago

Only people who can recognize objective reality believe it.