Is Donald Trump disqualified? Only Congress can decide!

[CowboyTed]

Proving that someone is too young to have been elected President is easy through birth records.

Proving that Donald Trump actually committed an "insurrection" is going to be impossible.

Read the constitution again... He doesn't need to have 'committed'

 

[beautress]

The Disqualification Clause of the 14th Amendment (section 3) states that anyone who previously took an oath to support the constitution of the United States and then committed insurrection "against the same" is barred from serving in pretty much any kind of high office in either the federal or state governments. Section 5 further states that Congress has the power to enforce the provisions of the 14th amendment.

And indeed Congress has utilized that power with multiple laws. The Enforcement Act of 1870 was passed under the section 5 power of the 14th amendment, and though it's since been amended, this part is still in force today:



All things considered, this is a rather weak means of enforcement, as it merely restates the constitution. Congress could, for example, legislate that no person who has committed insurrection or rebellion may appear on any ballot for office, and that no vote for such person shall be counted, to include the votes of electors for President and Vice President, so on and so force. But they have chosen not to do so, for better or worse.

This, therefore, leaves very little available to be done at the federal level during the preparations for an election. At the state level some may be tempted to believe that much more can be done. But this is, at best, a foolish endeavor into partisanship. It would amount to proverbial ballot gerrymandering.

States are not the proper venue to fight federal battles. The constitution does not generally permit or tolerate states attempting to wield matters of federal power. We see that in the recent dust up over Texas attempting to set its own immigration policies. Going back a few decades the Supreme Court made it clear in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton that states have no power to legislate term limits for their own members of Congress, or otherwise enact qualifications more restrictive than what the US Constitution sets.

The Court's reasoning is fairly simple: The federal government did not exist prior to the ratification of the constitution, any power the states might possess in regards to its own members of Congress stems from the constitution itself, but the constitution does not grant states the power to enact term limits for Congressional office, therefore the states cannot possibly have reserved a previously nonexistent power through the 10th amendment and since the constitution did not grant them the new power to enact term limits for service in Congress no such power exists.

Also of note is that the constitution explicitly states that each house of Congress will be the judge of its own members' qualifications. Clearly, the constitution envisions only the federal government can rightly determine any question over a person's constitutional qualifications to hold a federal office. This fact is further reflected in the constitution mechanics for the Electoral College, and its contingencies for vacancies.

The constitution grants the power to choose electors to the states, by any means they wish, except that anyone holding a public federal office is excluded (once again notice the way the constitution draws lines between federal officials and state officials co-mingling their respective duties). While the states certainly can create their own legislation that might deprive people from appearing on the ballot for allegedly committing whatever that state thinks constitutes insurrection against the US for purposes of the 14th amendment. But the state's action would have absolutely no real bearing on the person's eligibility under the constitution because states have no power to set or test qualifications for federal offices.

Instead, the constitution positively anticipates the possibility that a person could win a Presidential election even though they might not be constitutionally qualified. The 20th amendment demonstrates this, as it prescribed contingencies for that very possibility.



Furthermore, while state laws may try to force electors to be faithful, that is an entirely state matter. The constitution has no conception of this within its own understanding of how the mechanisms of the federal government are designed. Instead, the constitution only knows that, as described in the 12th amendment, each elector casts separate ballots for President and Vice President. A key detail that is demanded by the constitution is the prohibition on electors against voting for two people from their own state. The constitution includes an explicit prohibition on who electors can vote for. This is important because we cannot infer additional prohibitions that aren't also explicitly stated. While the constitution states that no person not a natural born citizen, or under the age of 35, can serve as President, the constitution does not anywhere state that electors are prohibited from voting a person unless they have first verified the person is constitutionally qualified.

In conclusion, Congress has the power under the 14th amendment to enact robust measures that would affirmatively prevent and bar insurrectionists like Donald Trump from even being a candidate for public office. However, they have chosen not to do so, for better or worse. As a result, the only mechanisms available are the largely toothless Section 2383 statute, and the mechanisms under the constitution. The constitution clearly envisions the possibility for a person to become President elect even though they do not meet the constitutional qualifications. And those mechanisms are what will have to be followed.

Quit being a damn traitor. Oh, wait. some people like monarchs like the Biden royalteetees. You're all about getting paid, and paid you get for betraying the best President this country has had in the last few decades. Take your little stilletto and cram it up your holster.

 

[CowboyTed]

Nope. Congress already passed a criminal statute about insurrection. So, that part is done.

What would be required — now — to invoke the 14th to disqualify Trump would be a criminal prosecution under that criminal statute leading to a conviction of our former President.

This is silliness. Ain’t gonna happen.

Nope...

No where in the constitution does it say there is a need for a conviction.. Read the constitution..

 

[Dragonlady]

Who was convicted of an insurrection again? A friend wants to know....

The 14th Amendment has no requirement for a conviction.

What is laughable is that you refuse to acknowledge this fact.

 

[22lcidw]

Bullshit. Trump is facing 91 felonies with mountains of evidence against him, some still not revealed by the SC. The way to deal with Trump & the only way to deal with him is the court system, just like anyone else facing what he is. Trump is a private citizen, period. And he DESERVES to be put on trial to either clear his name or convict him.

A trial. Which scares the beejesuse out the MAGA cult because you're scared shitless that the whole truth will be revealed about what he did & he'll be found guilty.

Put Trump on trial now. And whether he's convicted or isn't then the voter's can decide whether he's worthy of holding the office of POTUS.

Trump is so goddamm innocent he's desperate to be reelected so he can pardon himself (which is an admission of guilt) or he can appoint an AG who will let him off the hook.

If a common person ran for President and had the agendas Trump did, he would be destroyed by the powers that be. The fact is it seems no commoner could be elected President today with views not approved from the elites.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

The 14th Amendment has no requirement for a conviction.

What is laughable is that you refuse to acknowledge this fact.

Oh really? So when President Trump gets back into office, he can charge you with an insurrection and without a conviction, toss your sorry ass into a jail without due process and leave you to rot for the rest of your sorry life?

 

[Stormy Daniels]

This will be decided: either SCOTUS decides, or it lets appellate court decision stand.

Congress can only bow its head in submission.

The judiciary is famously loathe to involve itself into political matters. And it will likely see all of this as a political matter.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

The US Constitution says if you've served two terms, you cannot be on the ballot.

No, it only says that you cannot serve another term. If a state chooses to put Barack Obama and George W Bush on the ballot for 2024, that is their prerogative. It will be for the people of that state to petition their government if they have a problem with it.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Oh really? So when President Trump gets back into office, he can charge you with an insurrection and without a conviction, toss your sorry ass into a jail without due process and leave you to rot for the rest of your sorry life?

Do you actually believe your comparison makes any sense at all?

 

[DBA]

The 14th Amendment has no requirement for a conviction.

What is laughable is that you refuse to acknowledge this fact.

So a state can make false claims if they want to remove a presidential candidate from their ballot? Ridiculous.

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

The Disqualification Clause of the 14th Amendment (section 3) states that anyone who previously took an oath to support the constitution of the United States and then committed insurrection "against the same" is barred from serving in pretty much any kind of high office in either the federal or state governments. Section 5 further states that Congress has the power to enforce the provisions of the 14th amendment.

And indeed Congress has utilized that power with multiple laws. The Enforcement Act of 1870 was passed under the section 5 power of the 14th amendment, and though it's since been amended, this part is still in force today:



All things considered, this is a rather weak means of enforcement, as it merely restates the constitution. Congress could, for example, legislate that no person who has committed insurrection or rebellion may appear on any ballot for office, and that no vote for such person shall be counted, to include the votes of electors for President and Vice President, so on and so force. But they have chosen not to do so, for better or worse.

This, therefore, leaves very little available to be done at the federal level during the preparations for an election. At the state level some may be tempted to believe that much more can be done. But this is, at best, a foolish endeavor into partisanship. It would amount to proverbial ballot gerrymandering.

States are not the proper venue to fight federal battles. The constitution does not generally permit or tolerate states attempting to wield matters of federal power. We see that in the recent dust up over Texas attempting to set its own immigration policies. Going back a few decades the Supreme Court made it clear in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton that states have no power to legislate term limits for their own members of Congress, or otherwise enact qualifications more restrictive than what the US Constitution sets.

The Court's reasoning is fairly simple: The federal government did not exist prior to the ratification of the constitution, any power the states might possess in regards to its own members of Congress stems from the constitution itself, but the constitution does not grant states the power to enact term limits for Congressional office, therefore the states cannot possibly have reserved a previously nonexistent power through the 10th amendment and since the constitution did not grant them the new power to enact term limits for service in Congress no such power exists.

Also of note is that the constitution explicitly states that each house of Congress will be the judge of its own members' qualifications. Clearly, the constitution envisions only the federal government can rightly determine any question over a person's constitutional qualifications to hold a federal office. This fact is further reflected in the constitution mechanics for the Electoral College, and its contingencies for vacancies.

The constitution grants the power to choose electors to the states, by any means they wish, except that anyone holding a public federal office is excluded (once again notice the way the constitution draws lines between federal officials and state officials co-mingling their respective duties). While the states certainly can create their own legislation that might deprive people from appearing on the ballot for allegedly committing whatever that state thinks constitutes insurrection against the US for purposes of the 14th amendment. But the state's action would have absolutely no real bearing on the person's eligibility under the constitution because states have no power to set or test qualifications for federal offices.

Instead, the constitution positively anticipates the possibility that a person could win a Presidential election even though they might not be constitutionally qualified. The 20th amendment demonstrates this, as it prescribed contingencies for that very possibility.



Furthermore, while state laws may try to force electors to be faithful, that is an entirely state matter. The constitution has no conception of this within its own understanding of how the mechanisms of the federal government are designed. Instead, the constitution only knows that, as described in the 12th amendment, each elector casts separate ballots for President and Vice President. A key detail that is demanded by the constitution is the prohibition on electors against voting for two people from their own state. The constitution includes an explicit prohibition on who electors can vote for. This is important because we cannot infer additional prohibitions that aren't also explicitly stated. While the constitution states that no person not a natural born citizen, or under the age of 35, can serve as President, the constitution does not anywhere state that electors are prohibited from voting a person unless they have first verified the person is constitutionally qualified.

In conclusion, Congress has the power under the 14th amendment to enact robust measures that would affirmatively prevent and bar insurrectionists like Donald Trump from even being a candidate for public office. However, they have chosen not to do so, for better or worse. As a result, the only mechanisms available are the largely toothless Section 2383 statute, and the mechanisms under the constitution. The constitution clearly envisions the possibility for a person to become President elect even though they do not meet the constitutional qualifications. And those mechanisms are what will have to be followed.

actually the founders included the prez in that document.they decided to remove it.lst time it was used on a congress critter in like 1912....lolol

 

[Stormy Daniels]

So a state can make false claims if they want to remove a presidential candidate from their ballot? Ridiculous.

States have broad latitude to effectively, or ineffectively, run free and fair elections. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that citizens must turn to the state governments when looking for protections of their right to vote. When a state proves ineffective at ensuring fair elections, the people must petition their state government for redress, as the federal government has very little it is empowered to do on the matter.

So yes, a state can remove a Presidential candidate from their ballot, for damn near any reason they want.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

actually the founders included the prez in that document.they decided to remove it.lst time it was used on a congress critter in like 1912....lolol

You still hung over from New Years, or are you just too uneducated to speak intelligibly?

 

[Stormy Daniels]

The 14th Amendment does not require a conviction in court.

This is correct. The constitution is the highest law of the land. It's demands do not require judicial action before they can be honored. Those demands do not depend on the legislature first enacting statutes upon which a conviction can be made.

To claim that the constitution's disqualifications first requires a criminal conviction under law is to say that the constitution is subservient to the the legislative and judicial branches of the government. And doing that is a rejection of the constitution itself.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Do you actually believe your comparison makes any sense at all?

I know about the Stalinist events during the Soviet Socialist States of Russia. We are seeing the exact same thing in the Soviet Socialist States of America.

39 years ago, a KGB defector chillingly predicted modern America

• A former KGB agent named Yuri Alexandrovich Bezmenov claimed in 1984 that Russia has a long-term goal of ideologically subverting the U.S.
• He described the process as "a great brainwashing" that has four basic stages.
• The first stage, he said, is called "demoralization," which would take about 20 years to achieve.

And it is stupid fucks like you which is allowing it to happen...Grow some grey matter before it is too late...

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

This is correct. The constitution is the highest law of the land. It's demands do not require judicial action before they can be honored. Those demands do not depend on the legislature first enacting statutes upon which a conviction can be made.

To claim that the constitution's disqualifications first requires a criminal conviction under law is to say that the constitution is subservient to the the legislative and judicial branches of the government. And doing that is a rejection of the constitution itself.

The constitution is only followed when it can benefit the Marxists/Demofascist use against the Republican, other than that, the Marxists/Demofascist believe it is a usless piece of paper.

 

[DBA]

So yes, a state can remove a Presidential candidate from their ballot, for damn near any reason they want.

Do you believe this should remain the case given that politics play such a huge role in state legislatures and leadership? Why do we have any federal laws that everyone in the country is subject to follow? Why can't the state simply make their own, over-ruling any federal laws? I am a state's rights guy, so I am fine with it as long as we take it all the way to it's logical conclusion.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Do you believe this should remain the case given that politics play such a huge role in state legislatures and leadership? Why do we have any federal laws that everyone in the country is subject to follow? Why can't the state simply make their own, over-ruling any federal laws? I am a state's rights guy, so I am fine with it as long as we take it all the way to it's logical conclusion.

Because if it is only state laws that matter then all the Marxists/Demofascist run to the free states because the ones they left behind are such shitholes. Then the stupid fucks, vote in the free states eventually turning them into shitholes. That is how fucking stupid the left is.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

I know about the Stalinist events during the Soviet Socialist States of Russia. We are seeing the exact same thing in the Soviet Socialist States of America.

39 years ago, a KGB defector chillingly predicted modern America

And it is stupid fucks like you which is allowing it to happen...Grow some grey matter before it is too late...

 

[Stormy Daniels]

The constitution is only followed when it can benefit the Marxists/Demofascist use against the Republican, other than that, the Marxists/Demofascist believe it is a usless piece of paper.

Cool story, bro.