Prominent conservative legal scholars are increasingly raising a constitutional argument that 2024 Republican candidate Donald Trump should be barred from the presidency because of his actions to overturn the previous presidential election result.

  • nucleative@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’s a good thing that it is very difficult to stop somebody from running for office.

    The act of running for office, or more accurately the act of the people to chose whom represents them, should not be easy to take away.

    In banana republics the new guy or the guy with the most power at the moment regularly uses tactics to stop their opponents in the courts. Sometimes the charges are legitimate, but sometimes they are totally fabricated.

    Take for example the case of Pita, 42 years old, the leader of the move forward party in Thailand. His party swept the recent election and by many accounts average Thai people see his ideas as the most welcome path forward. Yet the old guys and their friends, who were part of the coup 6-7 years ago, are still in power. They have been able to completely shut Pita’s party down in the courts, and despite the people having made a choice by voting, they, will not get the government they wanted.

    If there was another political party in the USA that was more successful than Trump’s at breaking the laws, and the American courts were to set a precedent that some opponents can’t run for office given legal charges, I’m afraid the risk of politicians looking to defeat their opponents in court would become much more common than trying to defeat them in the polls.

    • EnderWi99in@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I agree with this, but can we stop referring to every rigged democratic system and autocratic government as a Banana Republic?

      It just makes people posting look less knowledgeable about government and politics because it’s meaning is tied to something very specific that doesn’t apply to your overall well thought out comment.

      Thailand is not an example of a Banana Republic and neither is the US, nor could it ever be, as it’s not a country tied to very limited export of natural resources.

      • nucleative@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Is there another, more relevant term to describe governments that use sham strategies to subvert the people to obtain their goals? If so I’ll changw my vocabulary. I just didn’t know of another better term at the moment of writing my post.

        Perhaps junta governments?

        • EnderWi99in@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          No that’s totally fair, but that term is just misused as it applies to something very specific which deserves to be remembered and recognized as it’s own unique threat. I think the closest thing to what you might be referring is aligned to a faux democracy of Russia, which is just a form of an autocracy.

    • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Okay but repeatedly and blatantly trying to subvert democracy should mean that you don’t get to participate in democracy anymore for the same reason that you should be banned from a chess tournament if you kick the board over and pull out a gun the first time someone puts you into check.

      • nucleative@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        What if that is legitimately what the people “want” and see voting that way to cast their belief in such a major change?

        It’s a government of the people, by the people, for the people. The people get to make the rules at the chess tournament. The courts… work for the people.

        I know that would be a particularly bad change, but if the majority of people truly want a pathway for it, what other way is available?

        • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          it’s also a government where “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights”. when the will of the people conflicts with human rights, humans rights are supposed to win.

          • nucleative@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s obviously not something we’d consider to be morally justifiable now, although if such a horrendous situation were to emerge, how to stop the 3/4?

            In this thought experiment, I’m trying to think about how we could we bake into a democracy the idea that for some issues, a submajority can tell the majority who they can vote for.

            Isn’t that kind of the very opposite of the concept?

            To be clear, I’d personally never vote for any candidate who was the subject of criminal legal troubles, much was multiple indictments.

            • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It is currently baked in through human rights. Of course you can’t fully defend against attempts to remove these rules - they don’t matter if people don’t keep to them. But that’s why a democracy shouldn’t be allowed to do anything the population wants.

    • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It doesn’t matter. The corrupt Thai government was going to do that whether it was legal or not just as fascists here will do what they want whether legal or not, so they have to be forcibly stopped at the gate. That’s why that constitutional provision is even there.

      • nucleative@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, I agree. Unfortunately the old guys are pro at playing that game and Pita just wasn’t there yet.

        I think the old guys do care if their domestic authority appears plausible on the international scene. Otherwise they run into problems .

        But the Thai people have definitely spoken. How serious they feel about it will come out over time, I suppose.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The act of running for office, or more accurately the act of the people to chose whom represents them, should not be easy to take away.

      You don’t vote for president. You vote for electors. It isn’t “the people”.