• Jimbob0i0@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 years ago

        I mean when even the federalist society are penning their opinions on various publications supporting such a position…

        • gac11@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 years ago

          Isn’t the opposite true though as well? Can’t red states just make up reasons to remove biden if a conviction isn’t required?

          • ganksy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 years ago

            It is insurrection specific so states would have the burden of proving (if they cared about proof) Biden was engaged with an insurrection.

          • agentsquirrel@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 years ago

            Sure, if they could identify an instance in which he “engaged in insurrection or rebellion […], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof”. Biden has never committed such an offense, so in order for red states to attempt this they’d have to fabricate facts and have a sufficient number of state officials go along with it, essentially The Big Lie 2.0.

    • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.worldBannedOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 years ago

      Legally he can not be on the ballot in any of the 51 electoral jurisdictions per the United States Consitution.