369
submitted 1 year ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

Jacob Chansley, sentenced to three years for his role in the Capitol riots, will run as a libertarian in Arizona.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] PugJesus@kbin.social 30 points 1 year ago
[-] Uglyhead@lemmy.world 45 points 1 year ago

If you’re part of an insurrection, you shouldn’t be able to run for any public office anywhere.

If Germany would have had this same rule/law the whole world in this timeline would look completely different.

[-] Cannacheques@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 year ago

Hey look, you could theoretically identify as an anarchist, and have constructive ideas about how a government system could be improved

[-] mateomaui@reddthat.com 19 points 1 year ago

Unfortunately, yeah. Can’t vote but can be voted into office.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 37 points 1 year ago

No he can’t. Jan 6 was an insurrection. He’s absolutely ineligible

[-] mateomaui@reddthat.com 4 points 1 year ago
[-] WarmSoda@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago

So can he or can't he be voted in?

[-] Drusas@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago

It will probably ultimately depend on whether or not the Supreme Court decides to uphold the 14th amendment of the Constitution. The lower courts are slowly working their way towards bringing that question to the upreme Court as it relates to Trump.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It has more to do with being released from federal prison. But yeah, he in the navy; which means he took an oath.

[-] Fal@yiffit.net 3 points 1 year ago

Can you point out exactly what makes him ineligible? Even if everyone agreed that it was an insurrection, point out where it would bar him.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Can’t work from home when that home is a federal prison.

He was sentenced for 3 years. (Which is a joke, but that’s besides the point.)

And he’s ex military which means the 14th applies

[-] TheaoneAndOnly27@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

You bring up an interesting point, and I'll admit I am not a constitutional lawyer. But section 3 of the 14th amendment says that hey couldn't have sworn to uphold the Constitution prior to attempting insurrection. Thats how they are framing it for Trump too because he swore to uphold the Constitution when he came into office. I don't know if Chansley had done the same or if that would make a difference.

[-] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

He was in the military. I definitely remember swearing an oath to uphold the constitution when I enlisted. Section 3 should bar him no problem.

[-] TheaoneAndOnly27@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

Oh, I didn't know that about him. I'll be honest I have not followed his story very closely.

[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago

No. He's ex-military, 14th amendment applies.

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...

He took an oath as a member of the military, he also took part in insurrection.

From the court documents:

The crimes charged in the indictment involve active participation in an insurrection attempting to violently overthrow the United States Government. By Chansley’s own admissions to the FBI and news media, the insurrection is still in progress and he intends to continue participating.

[-] TechyDad@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

You and I might agree that it applies, but how much do you want to bet that some Trump appointed judges decide that it doesn't apply and kill any effort to remove him from the ballot?

[-] mateomaui@reddthat.com 6 points 1 year ago

Ya’ll keep saying these things like I don’t already know, but regardless of what the 14th amendment says, or his military background, ultimately that determination will be made by a court decision, because if nothing else he will sue the state if they choose to take him off the ballot. I didn’t make the rules, or the legal system.

[-] meeeeetch@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

While obviously Chansley deserves to face punishment for his crimes, let's not pretend that it wasn't an obscenity that Eugene Debs had to run for office from prison for suggesting that the US had no business throwing lives away in the trenches of World War I

[-] mateomaui@reddthat.com 20 points 1 year ago

No one said or pretended anything about it, but sure.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Debs is apples to pond scum in comparison. Nice whataboutism, though.

[-] uphillbothways@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

As much as I want to say no, to my knowledge he technically hadn't "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" so I think he'd be eligible under Amendment 14, Section 3, article 1... quoted here in full:

Fourteenth Amendment, 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.

Though, he had previously been in the US Navy, and the Navy oath of enlistment begins ""I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic....," he was not even an officer in the Navy let alone in a legislative, executive or judicial branch position.

Pretty sure he would be eligible to run this time, whereas trump would not.

[-] vinylshrapnel@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Enlisted have non-commissioned officers so if he ever made it to E-5 then maybe?

this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2023
369 points (94.9% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2919 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS