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 March 2025, in the thread "Re: OT, out", Umm asked the members: "Do you think it is because America is made up of magical soil that makes businesses based in America magically profitable?" 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 (19) |
Author: albaby1 ✶❂🐝 GOLD
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 86289 
Subject: Re: Trump and 14th Amendment
Date: 09/15/23 3:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 2
I consider the Senate impeachment trial to be a serious undertaking, and while different than a state civil trial there are some similarities in evidence presentation and arguments.

It is a serious undertaking - but it is not a judicial undertaking. It is thus wholly dissimilar from a state civil trial. The impeached individual has no due process rights in those proceedings - they have no right to present evidence, call witnesses, cross examine witnesses, or even provide argument. Historically, the Senate has chosen to provide some very limited procedural rights to the accused - but it's not anything like a civil trial. For the January 6th impeachment, the Senate chose not to have any witnesses at all - so neither the impeachment managers nor Trump were allowed to have witnesses (or cross-examine the others').

The OP 126 page law review article says "in principle: Section Three's disqualification rule may and must be followed, applied, honored, obeyed, enforced, carried out by anyone whose job it is to figure out whether someone is legally qualified to office, just as with any of the Constitution's other qualifications". Whatever the Secretary of State decides, a civil lawsuit will follow, and the issue will be decided in a state court, with all of the normal appeals all the way to the Supreme Court.

Yeah, that's just wrong. I work with local government staff and employees all the time (though not dealing with elections - my specialty is zoning). Universally, their job is not to interpret the U.S. Constitution. If you want to argue that some law, some decision, or some action violates the Constitution, you're welcome to go to court and get a court to tell them that there's some rule they have to follow that isn't in the ordinances or state statutes they're obligated to apply. Unless you do that, they have to follow the black letter of the law. They only get to make the decisions that state election law empowers them to make. Unless the state election law gives them the power to make the call whether someone is a rebel or insurrectionist, then it's not their choice.
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 86,214 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 (19) |


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