Trying to Bar Trump From 2024 Ballot Is Unconstitutional and Lawfare at Its Worst

[eagle7-31]

Trying to Bar Trump From 2024 Ballot Is Unconstitutional and Lawfare at Its Worst​

Judges Have No Legal Authority to Bar Trump From 2024 Ballots

These anti-Trump ballot challenges are lawfare at its worst, trying to use the law and the courts as a political weapon.

www.dailysignal.com

2 Nov 2023 ~~ By Hans von Spakovsky

As state court proceedings get under way in Colorado, Michigan and Minnesota in lawsuits aimed at barring Donald Trump from appearing as a presidential candidate on the ballot in next year’s presidential election, the judges in those cases should understand that the text, history, and application of the 14th Amendment make it clear that they have no legal authority to take any such action.
Due to Trump’s supposed actions on Jan. 6, 2021, the challengers are trying to argue that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, the disqualification clause, prevents him from being president even if he is elected, so he should be removed from the ballot by state election officials.
Section 3 provides that:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector for President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States … who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same … . But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.​

Because Trump allegedly engaged in an insurrection, according to the challengers, he is disqualified by Section 3.
There are three major legal problems with that claim, however.
Trump Didn’t Hold An Applicable Office
First of all, Section 3 only applies to individuals who were previously a “member of Congress,” an “officer of the United States,” or a state official. Trump has never been any of those.
He has never held state office or been a U.S. senator or representative, and the U.S. Supreme Court held in 1888 in U.S. v. Mouat that “officers” are only those individuals who are appointed to positions within the federal government.
Individuals who are elected—such as the president and vice president—are not officers within the meaning of Section 3.
~Snip~

No Conviction for ‘Insurrection or Rebellion’​

Second, no federal court has convicted Trump of engaging in “insurrection or rebellion” in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2383, which makes it a crime to engage in “any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States.”
More importantly, in the second impeachment resolution of Trump on Jan. 11, 2021, he was charged by the House of Representatives in Article I with “Incitement of Insurrection.” Yet, he was acquitted by the Senate.
Given our federal constitutional system, state and federal courts should not gainsay the findings of Congress on this issue. The risk of inconsistent rulings from state and county election officials, as well as from the many different courts hearing these challenges, could cause electoral chaos.
~Snip~

Section 3 No Longer Extant?​

Third, there is an argument that can be made—and which was already adopted by one federal court—that Section 3 doesn’t even exist anymore as a constitutional matter.
Keep in mind that the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 after the end of the Civil War. It was aimed at the former members of the Confederate government and military who had previously been in Congress or held executive posts.
All of the challengers filing lawsuits to try to remove Trump from their state ballots are ignoring the final sentence in Section 3, which is a unique provision found in no other amendment to the Constitution. It allows Congress to remove the disqualification clause “by a vote of two-thirds of each House.”
Congress voted to remove the disqualification twice. The Amnesty Act of 1872 stated that the “political disabilities” imposed by Section 3 “are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever” except for members of the 36th and 37th Congresses and certain other military and foreign officials.


Commentary:
Excellent, reasoned and backed by historical fact, SCOTUS rulings and Congressional Acts by the author Hans von Spakovsky.
Democrat Socialists of America Commies use of Lawfare is obviously subjective and unconstitutional. Any judge participating in such shenanigans, should face pushback and disbarment.

the DemoRATS are worthless bottom feeders.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

No such thing exists as law warfare.

It is a MAGA invention with no substance.

When MAGA is irradicated, the silly inventions will go away.

 

[Crepitus]

It is constitutional to try to remove him legally but in my opinion it should fail.

You are completely entitled to your opinion, what you can't have is your own set of "alternative facts" like the OP wants.

 

[Catsnmeters]

You are completely entitled to your opinion, what you can't have is your own set of "alternative facts" like the OP wants.

Indeed. That is why I prefaced my statement with the word opinion.

"...but in my opinion it should fail."

Certainly you can see the folly in disqualifying a presidential candidate on the basis of an accusation?

 

[Crepitus]

Indeed. That is why I prefaced my statement with the word opinion.

"...but in my opinion it should fail."

Certainly you can see the folly in disqualifying a presidential candidate on the basis of an accusation?

Dude, this is more than an accusation. We all watched this happen on live TV,

I know what the pundits are telling you guys to think, but deep down, you all know what really happened.

 

[Moonglow]

There is no Democrat Party in power in the federal govt.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There is no Democrat Party in power in the federal govt.

There is, and it is the Presidency. That's it. That's our national seat of power, now, as far as "doing anything at all". That's what a dysfunctional Congress hath wrought.

 

[Moonglow]

There is, and it is the Presidency. That's it. That's our national seat of power, now, as far as "doing anything at all". That's what a dysfunctional Congress hath wrought.

The nomenclature for The Democratic Party is not The Democrat Party, see the diff? Can't you people read or spell?

 

[jbander]

Trying to Bar Trump From 2024 Ballot Is Unconstitutional and Lawfare at Its Worst​

Judges Have No Legal Authority to Bar Trump From 2024 Ballots

These anti-Trump ballot challenges are lawfare at its worst, trying to use the law and the courts as a political weapon.

www.dailysignal.com

2 Nov 2023 ~~ By Hans von Spakovsky

As state court proceedings get under way in Colorado, Michigan and Minnesota in lawsuits aimed at barring Donald Trump from appearing as a presidential candidate on the ballot in next year’s presidential election, the judges in those cases should understand that the text, history, and application of the 14th Amendment make it clear that they have no legal authority to take any such action.
Due to Trump’s supposed actions on Jan. 6, 2021, the challengers are trying to argue that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, the disqualification clause, prevents him from being president even if he is elected, so he should be removed from the ballot by state election officials.
Section 3 provides that:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector for President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States … who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same … . But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.​

Because Trump allegedly engaged in an insurrection, according to the challengers, he is disqualified by Section 3.
There are three major legal problems with that claim, however.
Trump Didn’t Hold An Applicable Office
First of all, Section 3 only applies to individuals who were previously a “member of Congress,” an “officer of the United States,” or a state official. Trump has never been any of those.
He has never held state office or been a U.S. senator or representative, and the U.S. Supreme Court held in 1888 in U.S. v. Mouat that “officers” are only those individuals who are appointed to positions within the federal government.
Individuals who are elected—such as the president and vice president—are not officers within the meaning of Section 3.
~Snip~

No Conviction for ‘Insurrection or Rebellion’​

Second, no federal court has convicted Trump of engaging in “insurrection or rebellion” in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2383, which makes it a crime to engage in “any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States.”
More importantly, in the second impeachment resolution of Trump on Jan. 11, 2021, he was charged by the House of Representatives in Article I with “Incitement of Insurrection.” Yet, he was acquitted by the Senate.
Given our federal constitutional system, state and federal courts should not gainsay the findings of Congress on this issue. The risk of inconsistent rulings from state and county election officials, as well as from the many different courts hearing these challenges, could cause electoral chaos.
~Snip~

Section 3 No Longer Extant?​

Third, there is an argument that can be made—and which was already adopted by one federal court—that Section 3 doesn’t even exist anymore as a constitutional matter.
Keep in mind that the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 after the end of the Civil War. It was aimed at the former members of the Confederate government and military who had previously been in Congress or held executive posts.
All of the challengers filing lawsuits to try to remove Trump from their state ballots are ignoring the final sentence in Section 3, which is a unique provision found in no other amendment to the Constitution. It allows Congress to remove the disqualification clause “by a vote of two-thirds of each House.”
Congress voted to remove the disqualification twice. The Amnesty Act of 1872 stated that the “political disabilities” imposed by Section 3 “are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever” except for members of the 36th and 37th Congresses and certain other military and foreign officials.


Commentary:
Excellent, reasoned and backed by historical fact, SCOTUS rulings and Congressional Acts by the author Hans von Spakovsky.
Democrat Socialists of America Commies use of Lawfare is obviously subjective and unconstitutional. Any judge participating in such shenanigans, should face pushback and disbarment.

What a pile of shit , they are litterally using the 14th amendment of our constitution to get him out of American politics. The man and his party are total scum across the board. The cases charging Trump with insurrection have just begun in Colorado , with Minnesota and Michigan dates set charging the piece of shit with insurrection , better get use to it because every state all 50 and even potentially many more, can charge him with insurrection. There is a dozen lined up as we speak.

 

[jbander]

Love to see these worms squirm.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Actually it's completely constitutional.

Couldn't resist to prove you are an idiot once again?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The section 3 of the 14th amendment plain text, does not require a conviction for insurrection.....

And that's an issue that will have to be settled by the courts, likely ending up in the SC.... if they take the case up

Quote it, dumbass, and show us where it doesn't.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

He won't be able to campaign in those states from prison anyways, so you shouldn't get too miffed about it

What prison? Georgia's case is falling apart by the day. He will never stand trial for the federal charges because they can't get it done, and after the election if he is convicted, he could pardon himself if they tried to pursue the charges.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Republicans did it to Obama. What goes around comes around.

WTF are you prattling about now, dumbass? In what state was Obama kept off the ballot?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Hmm, no, there's a bit more to it than that.

Then do tell!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

91_felonies would put anyone away for life, dope.

It doesn't prevent him from being on the ballot, does it?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Shut up stupid. stay on topic.

Your orange God isn't fit to do much of anything. , much less be President of the United States..

That is your opinion, not a fact. How will you feel when he wins next year?

 

[toobfreak]

Trying to Bar Trump From 2024 Ballot Is Unconstitutional and Lawfare at Its Worst​

I think you mean at its BEST. And yes, typical egregious overreach and unAmerican stomping on American Law and human rights as per the left.
Just imagine if the GOP were trying to block Biden from the Colorado ballot and you'd hear complaining and a roar not equaled since the Siberian Trap eruptions!

 

[Lastamender]

1. That's Trump's defense? The former president can be as lawless as he wants and is above the law and the writers of the amendment didn't mean him?? No wonder the trial moved forward with merit in Colorado.....where 6 Republicans are challenging him in court, (with the help of a Democratic group of legal eagles) Trump was the Chief Executive Officer of the United States, he's included.

2. People were charged with Sedition, Seditious Conspiracy for 1/6 and convicted of it, with near 20 year sentences....the penalties for sedition are even greater than a simple insurrection.... Trump, in the least, aided and abetted the enemy by sitting idle for 3 hours and not calling it off or sending in help, while Ashley Babbitt was killed...and others, and by telling 1/6 convicted felons, he would pardon them.....

The section of the 14th requires No Charges or convictions..... So we will see how the case turns out..... ???

This is where it seems to me, that more should be needed..... though by reading it plainly, no more is required?

Even if Trump lost, he could request full congress, to allow him to run, if 2/3s say yes, then he can.

Those people were railroaded. J6 was a set up. Enough fucking drama.

 

[rampart]

The section 3 of the 14th amendment plain text, does not require a conviction for insurrection.....

And that's an issue that will have to be settled by the courts, likely ending up in the SC.... if they take the case up

the confederates were convicted? not likely.