The trial over an effort in Minnesota to keep former President Donald Trump off of the 2024 ballot began Thursday at the state Supreme Court as a similar case continued in Colorado.

The lawsuits in both states allege Trump should be barred from the 2024 ballot for his conduct leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. They argue Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says no one who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” after swearing an oath to support and defend the Constitution can hold office.

A group of Minnesota voters, represented by the election reform group Free Speech for People, sued in September to remove Trump from the state ballot under the 14th Amendment provision. The petitioners include former Minnesota Secretary of State Joan Growe and former state Supreme Court Justice Paul H. Anderson.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    It absolutely makes him responsible. What are you talking about? Next you’ll be telling me the Uvalde cops have no responsibility when it came to that massacre despite waiting outside and doing nothing.

    He wasn’t solely responsible. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t share in the responsibility.

    • helenslunch@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Certainly partially responsible but not legally.

      Same goes for Uvalde cops. Look how many of them are in jail.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Whether or not someone is in jail is irrelevant. The Constitution does not stipulate that a conviction is necessary.

        • helenslunch@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Whether or not someone is in jail is irrelevant.

          Of course it’s not. It’s proof that the system won’t incriminate someone for doing nothing. Hell the Supreme Court has ruled several times that law enforcement has no legal obligation to protect you, what makes you think the President is any different?

          I’m not talking about ethics here, I’m talking about things you can point to in a court of law as legal evidence. Generally they have a high bar for convicting most anyone of a crime, not to mention a former President, the likes of which would almost certainly result in public backlash from tens of millions of people and probably end their careers.

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

                To remove Trump from the ballot. Which doesn’t require him to have been convicted of anything to remove him. I’m not sure why this is so confusing.

                • helenslunch@feddit.nl
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It’s confusing because trials are typically used to determine guilt. So if they’re not determining if he’s guilty then WTF are they even doing?

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

                    Removing him from the ballot. See the headline of this post.

                    I’m not sure why you think being removed from a ballot necessarily involves being convicted of a crime, but that seems to be where you’re stuck.