Trump, the 14th and barring from office

[SmokeALib]

That's not what the 1/6 commision found
and
That's not what many of those convicted said.

But you go be irrelevant somewhere else please.

You go somewhere else - how bout fantasyland.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I and they haven't made that claim.

So you have proof Colorado had an insurrection in Colorado?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Ok, I'll bite, troll. Which CULT do you believe I am a card carrying member of this week? Didn't vote for Brandon, but we've done worse. Been a registered Independent for three decades. GO!

The democrat party is a cult. It has one theme orange man bad. Rewrite laws that allows people to slander and gain wealth from trump. Normal people don't support this shit.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You're a complete moron. I've never given any fucks what you say.

Liar cultist

 

[OKTexas]

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office​

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.

First, the Ballots

I don't see anything in the text that calls for, permits, or forbids removing a person's name from the ballots. In the primaries this is solely a State decision and in the General this still falls to the states although Federal jurisdiction may be inferred via the VRA.

I don't see that SCOTUS has any jurisdiction in the primary prospect and its jurisdiction in the General is "iffy."

Certification at the State

This is the first place I see that Trump could be excluded. State legislatures, under the 14th, could refuse to certify a Trump win and decide to submit a different slate of electors or no electors at all.

The Congress

One of three places Trump could be declared an insurrectionist. Courts, and State Legislatures being the others. My reading says that a majority of each House, any State legislature, or any Federal court has the authority to declare Trump an insurrectionist at which time Trump can only enter any Federal office, elected or not, upon a 2/3 vote of each house of Congress.

Not sure how it would work in the Congress. Would each House hold a separate vote as to whether Trump is an insurrectionist? Would the VP declare Trump ineligible and the collective Congress vote?

My thinking favors the latter as the VP is "in charge" during the certification process.

My own thinking here is that Trump is ineligible to hold any Federal office with the actual events and the numbers of people convicted for their actions under Trump's direction/banner.

I'd like to discuss how such a ban would be implemented.

What you pathetic little commies fail to understand is the 14th is not the determining factor, it's the laws passed by congress to implement it that are. Disqualification has to be the result of a conviction and part of a sentence resulting from a guilty verdict in accordance with the law. The 14th is not self implementing.

.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What you pathetic little commies fail to understand is the 14th is not the determining factor, it's the laws passed by congress to implement it that are. Disqualification has to be the result of a conviction and part of a sentence resulting from a guilty verdict in accordance with the law. The 14th is not self implementing.

.

You can look at it this way. The 14th amendment is about equal rights and due process for all citizens of America. Something democrats want to take from Trump.

 

[Faun]

Your insurrectionist BLM will be heading to prison

LOL

Your derangement is amusing, PussyBitch.

 

[Faun]

What you pathetic little commies fail to understand is the 14th is not the determining factor, it's the laws passed by congress to implement it that are. Disqualification has to be the result of a conviction and part of a sentence resulting from a guilty verdict in accordance with the law. The 14th is not self implementing.

Nope. To date, 8 people have been denied a seat in public office under the purview of the 14th Amendment.

To date, not one of them had been convicted of insurrection or rebellion.

 

[Dadoalex]

You go somewhere else - how bout fantasyland.

I don't go to Trump rallies.
My IQ is too high for the gate check.

 

[Dadoalex]

So you have proof Colorado had an insurrection in Colorado?

I'd say "don't be stupid" but, what's the use?

 

[Dadoalex]

What you pathetic little commies fail to understand is the 14th is not the determining factor, it's the laws passed by congress to implement it that are. Disqualification has to be the result of a conviction and part of a sentence resulting from a guilty verdict in accordance with the law. The 14th is not self implementing.

.

No, MAGAT, the 14th doesn't require any convictions.
Try reading.

 

[g5000]

DodoAlex has to be the 1000th useful idiot trying to push the "Insurrection /14th amendment" Kool-Aid. BAHAHAHAHAHA he's probably never even read the 14th amendment or knows WHY it was written.

You clearly have no clue.

 

[Rawley]

Every Judge that's taken up the question.

LOL Only one judge.

 

[Rawley]

No, MAGAT, the 14th doesn't require any convictions.
Try reading.

WHat does it require as far as adjudication?

 

[Dadoalex]

WHat does it require as far as adjudication?

Nothing. try reading the words.

 

[MarathonMike]

You clearly have no clue.

Another spoon-fed minion of The Regime shows up.

 

[g5000]

What you pathetic little commies fail to understand is the 14th is not the determining factor, it's the laws passed by congress to implement it that are. Disqualification has to be the result of a conviction and part of a sentence resulting from a guilty verdict in accordance with the law. The 14th is not self implementing.

.

Nope. Wrong.

No conviction required.

Many Confederates were banned from running for office despite not have been convicted of insurrection.

Your propagandists are lying to you.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/298999/20240129110006501_23-719%20bsac%20American%20Historians%20Final.pdf

The Jefferson Davis Case Showed That Section Three Required No Criminal Conviction and Was Self-Executing

Amici curiae briefs filed in support of the Petitioner by individuals who are not historians claim that “Historical records ... reveal that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment were not concerned that a Confederate leader could attain the presidency” and that “No Republican seriously feared that the national electorate would place a former rebel like Jefferson Davis in the White House.” These assertions are mistaken.

Obstacles to prosecuting Davis had made it increasingly likely that he would not be convicted on treason charges, thus underscoring the need for Section Three. As Lieber had worried, the failure to convict would mean that Davis would not fall under the disqualification provisions of the Second Confiscation Act. Section Three augmented that Act’s disqualification provision by eliminating the need fora treason conviction before a federal jury, at least insofar as prior oath-takers were concerned. Moreover, once underway, the Davis prosecution illuminated the meaning of Section Three by showing that lawyers and judges understood it to be self executing.

 

[Richard-H]

LOL Only one judge.

No there was a lower court judge in Colorado, then 7 judges on the Colorado Supreme court. All of them found that Trump had engaged in insurrection. The dissenting opinions were based on whether Colorado law gave them the power to bar Trump, not whether he engaged in insurrection.

Additionally, other state courts have found the Trump engaged in insurrection. They refused to bar Trump either due to technicalities with the State laws or deferred their decision until SCOTUS ruled.

No court has found that Trump did not engage in insurrection.

 

[g5000]

More from the link I provided in my last post which demonstrates a conviction is not required under the self-executing 14th Amendment:

Requests for Amnesty Underscore the Broad and Immediate Impact of Section Three

After the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, ex-rebels petitioned Congress seeking removal of the disabilities automatically imposed by the Disqualification Clause. Congress received hundreds of these petitions before the 1870 Enforcement Act. They came in droves, sometimes nearly a dozen a day. And, because individual petitions were often submitted on behalf of large numbers of people—for example, an 1869 petition for “26 members of the Georgia legislature”—they likely represent thousands of petitioners.

 

[g5000]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/298999/20240129110006501_23-719%20bsac%20American%20Historians%20Final.pdf

The meaning of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is best discerned in the actual history of Reconstruction. Haunted by the nation’s suffering and fearful of disloyalty and ongoing political violence, Congress conducted an investigation into conditions in the South and determined that the disqualification of office-holders who had engaged in an insurrection against the Constitution was necessary for the security of the republic. Their concerns included a possible bid for the presidency by Jefferson Davis. Section Three also gave the federal government the authority to guide reconstructed ex-Confederate states to find new leadership committed to equal rights for all. With an eye toward establishing enduring fundamental law and ensuring domestic tranquility, they framed a provision designed to hold future insurrectionists accountable by the same means. They knew that no one in the United States is above the law, not even the President, and that no republican government can afford to return insurrectionists to office. As Missouri Republican John B. Henderson declared the day he cast his vote for the Fourteenth Amendment in the Senate, “The language of this section is so framed as to disenfranchise from office the leaders of the past rebellion as well as the leaders of any rebellion hereafter to come.”

Originalists cannot argue the 14th amendment only applied to ex-Confederates. Members of Congress had their statements about it also applying to future insurrectionists read into the record.