Trump, the 14th and barring from office

[Dadoalex]

Your faggotry is noted

Not mine, honeysucker.

 

[MisterBeale]

that Statement was nothing official by the FBI..... It was an (Unnamed) anonymous source of 4 former FBI agents and allegedly an active one.

the FBI doesn't give results of an official investigation using former retired agents (as a source), without any support of a redacted Report of some sort.... Do they?

To my knowledge, there has been no evidence of Trump linked to any prior organized plot of the violence on Jan. 6th. It was all the spontaneous devolvement of a protest turned into a riot.

One need not find an FBI report proving that the riot was NOT organized, one need find one that it was. There is no such report.

Likewise, there is no connection to the violence on Jan. 6th, to Trump's zany legal theory of alternate electors, in fact, the violence got in the way, it stymied those plans.

Capitol Attack: Federal Agencies Identified Some Threats, but Did Not Fully Process and Share Information Prior to January 6, 2021 [Reissued with revisions on Jul. 21, 2023]

As part of our comprehensive look at the events of January 6, 2021, we examined how federal agencies identified potential threats, and how they used...

www.gao.gov

24 Months Since the January 6 Attack on the Capitol

www.justice.gov

 

[MisterBeale]

Projection.

300th thread on this topic, and total garbage.

It completely reeks of desperation, because they are doing an absolutely awful job with their totalitarian technocratic policies.

 

[Faun]

Look it up pussy

There's nothing to lookup, PussyBitch. You didn't cite a law they tried to prevent.

 

[Richard-H]

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.

Technically, SCOTUS does not have the power to directly bar Trump from the election ballots. However, SCOTUS can give an 'opinion ' on the issue and will do so while it considers Trump's appeal of the Colorado decision.

It's up to the laws of each state as to who is responsible for deciding which people will be on that State's ballot. In almost all cases, the State's Secretary of State decides. But the SoS decision can be overruled by the State courts. If SCOTUS' opinion is that Trump should be barred, the State's court will certainly defer to that opinion. Once SCOTUS has given their opinion, effectively it will be the same as if SCOTUS opinion is the final say on the issue.

Whether the State legislature can intervene in any way is doubtful. State Legislatures are bound by the laws & Constitution created by all previous State Legislatures. They can not go and make an Ad Hoc law. They could change either the law or the State Constitution, but they would have to live with the change permanently. It's doubtful they would do that.

Congress is not going to intervene either. They'll adhere to SCOTUS decision. It's silly to say that the 14th intended Congress to rule by a simple majority to bar a person from holding office, but then turn around and overrule themselves by a 2/3 majority to reverse that.

In the end SCOTUS will be the final say.

Remember - The final act that truly instantiates a person as President is when the Chief Justice of SCOTUS swears that person into office during the Inauguration. Don't count on the Chief Justice being willing to swear in Trump, when SCOTUS has found that he should be barred from holding office.

 

[SmokeALib]

Irrelevant to the thread OP.

Your OP is irrelevant. Trump didn't order shit.

 

[Richard-H]

"shall have engaged"
Is not the same as "have been convicted of"

And the 14th does not include any judicial remedies, only a 2/3 vote by congress to remove the ban.

Given that the 14th does not give the Courts jurisdiction but does give it to the legislature(s) my view is that only the legislatures at the State and Federal levels can make the determination.

The 14th is the LAW. Unless otherwise specified it's always the responsibility of the courts to rule on matters of law.

It's the State SoSes that have the power to act based on the court's decisions. If they defy the courts, they can be sued and forced to conform to the court's decisions.

The courts can rule that the election is invalid of the SoS does not comply.

It's really fun to see how this pans out. Our legal system was not created yesterday. It's a pretty air-tight system. Only extreme wealth can circumvent that system. In this case, even Trump's wealth is enough to get him out of this.

 

[MisterBeale]

In the end SCOTUS will be the final say.

Agreed.

I have written this over and over, and yet?

We have seen oodles and oodles of fantasy threads, claiming what they say, won't matter.

Folks are in complete and utter denial on this.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Who decided it was an insurrection?

The media.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

These immature posts echo your mash potato head cult leader perfectly.

They call us a CULT, so we call them a CULT.

 

[Richard-H]

Who decided it was an insurrection?

Every Judge that's taken up the question.

 

[Dadoalex]

Technically, SCOTUS does not have the power to directly bar Trump from the election ballots. However, SCOTUS can give an 'opinion ' on the issue and will do so while it considers Trump's appeal of the Colorado decision.

It's up to the laws of each state as to who is responsible for deciding which people will be on that State's ballot. In almost all cases, the State's Secretary of State decides. But the SoS decision can be overruled by the State courts. If SCOTUS' opinion is that Trump should be barred, the State's court will certainly defer to that opinion. Once SCOTUS has given their opinion, effectively it will be the same as if SCOTUS opinion is the final say on the issue.

Whether the State legislature can intervene in any way is doubtful. State Legislatures are bound by the laws & Constitution created by all previous State Legislatures. They can not go and make an Ad Hoc law. They could change either the law or the State Constitution, but they would have to live with the change permanently. It's doubtful they would do that.

Congress is not going to intervene either. They'll adhere to SCOTUS decision. It's silly to say that the 14th intended Congress to rule by a simple majority to bar a person from holding office, but then turn around and overrule themselves by a 2/3 majority to reverse that.

In the end SCOTUS will be the final say.

Remember - The final act that truly instantiates a person as President is when the Chief Justice of SCOTUS swears that person into office during the Inauguration. Don't count on the Chief Justice being willing to swear in Trump, when SCOTUS has found that he should be barred from holding office.

The State Legislatures make the final determination as to who will be electors.
The Legislature(s) could reject a Trump slate over the insurrection and appoint either a Biden slate or a slate free to vote their conscience.

 

[Dadoalex]

Your OP is irrelevant. Trump didn't order shit.

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.

 

[Dadoalex]

The 14th is the LAW. Unless otherwise specified it's always the responsibility of the courts to rule on matters of law.

It's the State SoSes that have the power to act based on the court's decisions. If they defy the courts, they can be sued and forced to conform to the court's decisions.

The courts can rule that the election is invalid of the SoS does not comply.

It's really fun to see how this pans out. Our legal system was not created yesterday. It's a pretty air-tight system. Only extreme wealth can circumvent that system. In this case, even Trump's wealth is enough to get him out of this.

OK

Where in the 14th does anyone but Congress have the authority to change a candidate's status from "Insurrectionist" to "Not Insurrectionist?"

No answer in the 14th so we have to look at the State laws and the process that certifies a candidate as President.

The States chose both the electors and the process of their selection.
The EC counts the votes
The Congress certifies the EC count
The Chief Justice

At any point a candidate may be declared ineligible as an insurrectionist.
At which point the candidate is excluded from office barring a 2/3 vote of the Congress.

Politics aside, this is a fascinating exercise.
Unfortunately the question is moot as Trump will lose by 12-16M votes.

 

[Richard-H]

The State Legislatures make the final determination as to who will be electors.
The Legislature(s) could reject a Trump slate over the insurrection and appoint either a Biden slate or a slate free to vote their conscience.

State Legislatures have to follow State laws or be overruled by the State courts. In most state the law already says that the SoS determines eligibility. The SoS can be challenged in court. Direct intervention by the Legislatures is very unlikely.

 

[Richard-H]

OK

Where in the 14th does anyone but Congress have the authority to change a candidate's status from "Insurrectionist" to "Not Insurrectionist?"

No answer in the 14th so we have to look at the State laws and the process that certifies a candidate as President.

The States chose both the electors and the process of their selection.
The EC counts the votes
The Congress certifies the EC count
The Chief Justice

At any point a candidate may be declared ineligible as an insurrectionist.
At which point the candidate is excluded from office barring a 2/3 vote of the Congress.

Politics aside, this is a fascinating exercise.
Unfortunately the question is moot as Trump will lose by 12-16M votes.

The State laws determine the process for eligibility to be on the ballot. Those laws must respect the Federal Constitution. A State SoS decision could be overruled, whatever that decision is.

The State Laws determine how electors are chosen.

Congress does have the possibility of refusing electors and the EC count - so there is another point that Trump could be barred.

Finally, the Chief Justice must agree to swear in the new President.

 

[Dadoalex]

State Legislatures have to follow State laws or be overruled by the State courts. In most state the law already says that the SoS determines eligibility. The SoS can be challenged in court. Direct intervention by the Legislatures is very unlikely.

Legislatures make the laws.

 

[Dadoalex]

The State laws determine the process for eligibility to be on the ballot. Those laws must respect the Federal Constitution. A State SoS decision could be overruled, whatever that decision is.

The State Laws determine how electors are chosen.

Congress does have the possibility of refusing electors and the EC count - so there is another point that Trump could be barred.

Finally, the Chief Justice must agree to swear in the new President.

OK
State Laws and the legislatures also decide whether a candidate has won.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Every Judge that's taken up the question.

Nope that would be Congress you can fund the remedy in clause 5 of the 14th amendment.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

They call us a CULT, so we call them a CULT.

You're called a cultist because you act like a cultist. You don't have an individual thought. You're told what to think and when to act.