Here's a legal analysis from Reason on whether Trump can be impeached (and prevented from ever holding political office again).
It looks like yes. So, if you don't like your opposition, and you're in control, just prevent them from holding office again... I'm sure this standard won't backfire. And, it doesn't at all seem to be the thing 3rd world dictators tend to do.
It's hard not to see this as anything other than a strong shift to de facto artistocratic based limited democracy. You have to be agreeable to the establishment to run and serve. If not, .... "Orange Man Bad Law".
That certainly was one of the directions the US almost went down during its formation. There was a strong sense that only certain people were really fit for office. You had to have property and some "skin in the game". You also had to have a certain awareness of propriety. The latter seems to be what really is at issue today (and some powerful payback from vindictive establishment monoparty leaders and aspirants).
https://reason.com/2021/01/13/yes-the-senate-may-hold-trumps-impeachment-trial-after-he-leaves-office/
The legality of Trump's due process surrounding election irregularities is key. Here is the White House Trade Policy's advisors report (the only one ballsy enough to do one?). Sure looks like questions are legitimate, and thus Trump doesn't simply have a free speech case, but also a legal process case. And that seems to be the real issue - are you legally entitled to defend yourself if you have the wrong identity? For example, Alberta's new proposed quasi-criminal act flips the burden of proof from presumed innocent to presumed guilty. I think the state's moral awakening is flipping things similarly for those of a non moral una-party identity.
ReplyDeletehttps://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/be36dc6d-0df4-4c20-addf-fca72be46150/The%20Navarro%20Report%20Volume%20III%20Final%201.13.21-0001.pdf