• Mario_Dies.wav@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    8·
    11 months ago

    The people who think Trump should be allowed to run in spite of being an insurrectionist are the same people who support barring other justice-involved people from merely voting in an election

  • wizzor@sopuli.xyz
    2·
    11 months ago

    The one thing The Simpsons had wrong was Arnie as the POTUS. I wish that was the time they ignored the constitution – I think he did a decent job as the governator.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
      2·
      11 months ago

      He did a decent job in that he didn’t drive California into the ground. I was living in L.A. at the time. People voted to re-elect him because “he hasn’t been that bad” and Phil Angelides was a terrible candidate. I wouldn’t say he was an exceptional governor. Mostly he just maintained the status quo. Which, from what I hear (I no longer live in California), is still better than Newsom.

      • wizzor@sopuli.xyz
        2·
        11 months ago

        Thanks for taking the time to give a local’s insight, as a foreigner my point of view is limited!

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
          1·
          11 months ago

          A lot of people thought he did a great job. Probably because it’s so easy to be governor of California and do a terrible job.

  • joemo@lemmy.sdf.org
    1·
    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.worksEnglish
      1·
      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

      • Daniel F.@aussie.zoneEnglish
        2·
        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.comEnglish
          1·
          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.

      • joemo@lemmy.sdf.org
        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.

  • Ultragramps@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    1·
    11 months ago

    This is the argument that Raphael Cruz was born in Canada and shouldn’t have been a contender for the Republican nomination. I support this logic.

  • Sagifurius@lemm.ee
    1·
    11 months ago

    It’s not in the constitution. The first 15 presidents and all the original set of American politicians were literally insurrectionists and the original documents were very clear that, that sort of thing is allowed and protected. It’s later interpretations of statists that negate it.