States may move to keep Trump off the ballot based on 14th Amendment disqualification (3 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:

There is a growing movement in some states to conclude that Trump is already disqualified under the 14th Amendment and they may remove him from the ballot. This would set-up legal challenges from Trump that could end up at the SCOTUS.

The 14A disqualification doesn’t have any procedural requirements, it simply says that a person that does those things can’t serve in those offices. It a state says it applies to Trump, it would then be on Trump to show that it didn’t (either because what he didn’t doesn’t amount to the prohibited conduct, or that president isn’t an “officer” as intended by the amendment).

States are in charge of the ballots and can make eligibility determinations that are subject to appeal - there is actually a fairly interesting body of cases over the years with ballot challenges in federal court.


More on the legal argument in favor of this:

The Sweep and Force of Section Three

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range

papers.ssrn.com

The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again

The only question is whether American citizens today can uphold that commitment.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[Incumbent]

There is no outcome for the next election that doesn't end in Trump and his devoted followers not inflicting violence on society, so no one should be using "avoid Trump incited violence" as a factor in analyzing the best course of action. "Avoiding Trump incited violence" is a fool's errand.

It’s going to make a big difference, though, if Trump is prodding that violence as a losing candidate, or orchestrating it from the White House. The “best course of action”, in terms of how that determines the election outcome, is absolutely going to matter.

 

[superchuck500]

It was a Democrat scheme. It was CREW who filed the lawsuit which is a left wing organization. Did they think recruiting some Colorado Republicans would make people think it wasn't Democrat scheme?

Some background: On July 18, 2023, CREW published a report titled, “The case for Donald Trump’s disqualification under the 14th Amendment.”

The 90-page report breathlessly claimed that “on January 6, 2021, President Trump caused a violent insurrection that nearly overthrew an election and shattered our democracy.”

To prove their entire case, CREW relied on a 2016 paper from Bookbinder's Brookings collaborator & CREW co-founder Norman Eisen.

The paper by Eisen targeted Trump on the emoluments clause which targets corruption - particularly when linked to a foreign State.

But of course, there was a big problem with this line of attack - because the emoluments clause fit the crimes committed by Joe Biden in Ukraine, China and Romania - not anything Trump did.

So they quickly ditched that argument and simply began claiming that "legal scholars agree" the 14th Amendment applies to Trump. They are now pushing those arguments at the State Court level.

Bookbinder & Eisen previously collaborated on two Brookings reports (Vol I & II) titled “Presidential Obstruction of Justice: The Case of Donald J. Trump,” which outlined, among other things, a scenario wherein Mueller would refer his obstruction findings to Congress, which would then take up the matter and continue investigating.

The reports also discussed ways in which Congress could impeach the president, mentioning the word “impeachment” a total of 90 times.

The first Brookings report, published on October 10, 2017, looked at all the statutes that applied to obstruction, but their second, more lengthy report on August 22, 2018, focused more tightly on Section 1512.

The use of obscure and overly broad Section 1512 was first touted in an article by Ben Wittes (also a Brookings Fellow) in a June 2017 article titled, “Does an FBI Investigation Qualify Under the Obstruction of Justice Statutes? A Closer Look.”

It's therefore no surprise that Mueller's March 2019 Report focused in on Section 1512 and dedicated more than 20 pages to defending the use of Section 1512 and adopting the broadest interpretation possible.

In many respects, the Brookings second edition provided direct parallels to the Mueller report, with its lengthy section on “What are the relevant facts?” and a very detailed timeline contained in a 204-page appendix.

Eisen was later retained by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler on a consulting basis as special oversight counsel to the Democrat majority staff during Trump's first impeachment.

Bookbinder remained at CREW.

This idea that it “was a democrat scheme” is just false. Some of the most compelling analysis of Section 3 applied to January 6 has come from legal conservatives. Conservative authors (National Review) William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen discussed it in the panel over the summer 2023 that they believed that Section 3 applied to Trump - and that they were publishing a law review article advancing that argument. Their article in Penn U law review posted on Aug. 14. Shortly after that, an August 23 piece in the Atlantic by Lawrence Tribe and Republican conservative judge J. Michael Luttig endorsed Baude and Paulsen’s view.

The Colorado lawsuit was filed in September. Numerous articles refer to the Baude and Paulsen piece as being central to when the push began in earnest - perhaps because the CREW and other publications were considered partisan. But there’s no reasonable basis to claim the ballot effort - in Colorado and elsewhere - is a “Democrat scheme.” And the reason why is that there is a persuasive legal case that Section 3 should apply to Trump by its own terms. And there are plenty of conservatives and Republicans out there who still believe in the rule of law.

Earlier this month, two conservative law professors announced that they would be publishing an article, which will appear in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review next year, arguing that Donald Trump is ineligible for the Presidency. The professors, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, make the case that unless Congress grants Trump amnesty, he cannot run for or hold the office of the Presidency again because of his behavior surrounding the events of January 6th. The argument rests on Baude and Paulsen’s interpretation of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that officeholders, such as the President, who have taken an oath to “support” the Constitution and “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” will no longer hold such an office. Several days ago, Laurence Tribe, a liberal law professor, and J. Michael Luttig, a conservative former judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals, wrote an article for The Atlantic, in which they essentially endorsed the view advanced by Baude and Paulsen: “The former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and the resulting attack on the U.S. Capitol, place him squarely within the ambit of the disqualification clause, and he is therefore ineligible to serve as president ever again.”

Luttig was once on the Republican shortlist for Supreme Court nominees; recently he has become an outspoken critic of Trump.

The Sweep and Force of Section Three

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range

papers.ssrn.com

The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again

The only question is whether American citizens today can uphold that commitment.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[LA - L.A.]

It’s going to make a big difference, though, if Trump is prodding that violence as a losing candidate, or orchestrating it from the White House. The “best course of action”, in terms of how that determines the election outcome, is absolutely going to matter.

Of course different outcomes will lead to different outcomes. I don't think it's predictable at all, so I don't think it's a safe bet to assume that the most violent outcome will be if Trump wins.

I want Trump to lose regardless of how much violence that might lead to.

I think people are miscalculating if they think that the threat of losing our democracy diminishes or ends if Trump loses the election. The fight to preserve and repair our democracy is going to last long past the next election, regardless of who wins.

 

[Taurus]

Of course different outcomes will lead to different outcomes. I don't think it's predictable at all, so I don't think it's a safe bet to assume that the most violent outcome will be if Trump wins.

I want Trump to lose regardless of how much violence that might lead to.

I think people are miscalculating if they think that the threat of losing our democracy diminishes or ends if Trump loses the election. The fight to preserve and repair our democracy is going to last long past the next election, regardless of who wins.

The fight goes on but the enemy's greatest champion won't be on the field.

I think this primary has shown us that Trump really is lightning in a bottle. No one else commands the base like he does. I'll even go further and say that no one else commands the base, period.

It's like if Hitler had been killed in a car accident in late '38. Someone would have taken up leadership of the Nazi party but that person wouldn't have had Adolf's pull, his oratory skill, his unique intuition nor his ruthless timing.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

also, because of Jan 6th incident, any thing that occurs like this during or after this election will be met with deadly defensive measures by law enforcement.

 

[SaintForLife]

I answered it both times. "The courts will decide." There is nothing in the 14th amendment that says you must be convicted of insurrection to be disqualified. The wording is "engaged in".

You need the courts to tell you that a group of judges shouldn't be able to determine that someone is guilty of a crime(insurrection) without due process?

 

[MT15]

You need the courts to tell you that a group of judges shouldn't be able to determine that someone is guilty of a crime(insurrection) without due process?

What do you think due process is?

 

[SaintForLife]

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Republicans.

The plaintiffs had to be Republicans otherwise they wouldn't have standing to file the lawsuit. CREW filed the lawsuit and they are a left wing organization.

 

[MT15]

The plaintiffs had to be Republicans otherwise they wouldn't have standing to file the lawsuit. CREW filed the lawsuit and they are a left wing organization.

so how do you respond to Chuck‘s post listing all the conservative Constitutional experts who agree with the theory of the lawsuit? It isn’t a “left wing” idea. In fact conservative legal scholars were the first to bring it up.

 

[samiam5211]

The plaintiffs had to be Republicans otherwise they wouldn't have standing to file the lawsuit. CREW filed the lawsuit and they are a left wing organization.

The plaintiffs in the Colorado case are Republicans.

 

[SaintForLife]

You didn't answer the question. We know why, and it's ok. But, yes, if they had the intent to stop Congress from doing their job, and they committed any violent acts, then it is, by definition, an insurrection. A violent uprising to interfere with the government doing their job.

You made a nonsensical argument acting as if supposedly trying to stop votes from being counted was a required criteria for an insurrection.

A violent uprising to interfere with the government doing their job. That sounds like when BLM/Antifa attacked the federal courthouse.

Yeah, it kinda is. If you attend a rally titled, "Let's Kill the Cops," and you bring a gun, and go out chanting "Kill the cops!" then you are not simply 'caught up in a riot.' If you attend an event titled "Stop the Steal," and then go break into the Capitol chanting "Hang Mike Pence!", you were not just 'caught up in a riot,' you showed up with the intent to stop congress.

Using extreme examples doesn't do much for your point. The name of the rally means nothing.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Federal law enforcement is working with police in Colorado to investigate alleged threats to state Supreme Court justices who found Donald Trump ineligible to appear on the state’s 2024 presidential ballots.

A ruling from Colorado’s highest court earlier this month determined that the former president is disqualified from the presidency under the 14th Amendment, which bars anyone who has sworn an oath to uphold the constitution and “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding public office…..

On social media, Mr Trump’s supporters have echoed his attacks and rhetoric, fuelling reportedly credible threats against the judges, prosecutors and others involved in his cases, as well as their family members.

One post, on a far-right pro-Trump message board, read: “All f****** robed rats must f****** hang.”

The FBI is aware of threats made against Colorado Supreme Court justices and is working with local law enforcement, according to an agency spokesperson.

“We will vigorously pursue investigations of any threat or use of violence committed by someone who uses extremist views to justify their actions regardless of motivation,” FBI Public Affairs Officer Vikki Migoya said in a statement.……

FBI investigates threats to judges who disqualified Trump from 2024 ballots

Violent rhetoric targeting judges and leaks of personal information found on pro-Trump forums

www.independent.co.uk

 

[SaintForLife]

Do you have any clue how many people broke the law on Jan 6 and have never been charged? It is well over 1,000, maybe twice that. Plus you are comparing apples to oranges.

I believe that an attempt to overthrow an election and stop the peaceful transfer of power is far worse than taking part in a riot.

I'm sure there are way more BLM/Antifa that didn't get charged than January 6th.

For Richmond Virginia 69% of the cases were dropped including 56% felonies.

I don't know of any January 6th defendant cases that were dropped. Do you?

So it's obvious that the BLM/Antifa were treated differently by the legal system compared to January 6th.

 

[efil4]

Using extreme examples doesn't do much for your point. The name of the rally means nothing.

The copium is strong with this padawan.

 

[MT15]

I'm sure there are way more BLM/Antifa that didn't get charged than January 6th.

For Richmond Virginia 69% of the cases were dropped including 56% felonies.

I don't know of any January 6th defendant cases that were dropped. Do you?

So it's obvious that the BLM/Antifa were treated differently by the legal system compared to January 6th.

As it should be. What Jan 6 people did was far, far worse. They were trying to halt the peaceful transfer of power, and they planned it out in advance.

But you are also comparing federal and state charges. Apples and oranges.

I would also like to see your sources for those Richmond numbers. For example, how many dropped charges were the result of plea agreements where all but one charge was dropped in exchange for a guilty plea? How do those percentages compare with the normal course of criminal proceedings in that area?

 

[SaintForLife]

Democrats didn’t get Trump removed from the ballot. And the justices on the CO Supreme Court were all elected - none were appointed like you said in a different post.

Trump got himself removed from the ballot. His actions led to a legal petition and after due process he was found to have disqualified himself.

Every time Trump broke the law or a norm while he was President, Rs either ignored it or made excuses for it. Every single time. He abused the system by using “acting” secretaries in his Cabinet far past the deadline to get them confirmed by the Senate. He and others in his Administration ignored the Emoluments Clause all the time. He mixed his campaign and presidential duties all the time, which is also violation of the law.

Here’s a handy list:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/lifestyle/magazine/trump-presidential-norm-breaking-list/

Yes it was Democrats. CREW filed the lawsuit and they are a left wing organization. The Colorado Supreme Court judges that voted to removed Trump from the ballot are all Democrats.

Just imagine the scenario in the future where Republicans start getting every Democrat who have ever contested election results removed from the ballot.

 

[SaintForLife]

wait Now trump is lying? seems that selective choosing what lies to believe is a bit silly.

How would he be a dictator for only one day?

 

[SaintForLife]

This idea that it “was a democrat scheme” is just false. Some of the most compelling analysis of Section 3 applied to January 6 has come from legal conservatives. Conservative authors (National Review) William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen discussed it in the panel over the summer 2023 that they believed that Section 3 applied to Trump - and that they were publishing a law review article advancing that argument. Their article in Penn U law review posted on Aug. 14. Shortly after that, an August 23 piece in the Atlantic by Lawrence Tribe and Republican conservative judge J. Michael Luttig endorsed Baude and Paulsen’s view.

The Colorado lawsuit was filed in September. Numerous articles refer to the Baude and Paulsen piece as being central to when the push began in earnest - perhaps because the CREW and other publications were considered partisan. But there’s no reasonable basis to claim the ballot effort - in Colorado and elsewhere - is a “Democrat scheme.” And the reason why is that there is a persuasive legal case that Section 3 should apply to Trump by its own terms. And there are plenty of conservatives and Republicans out there who still believe in the rule of law.

The Sweep and Force of Section Three

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range

papers.ssrn.com

The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again

The only question is whether American citizens today can uphold that commitment.

www.theatlantic.com

CREW is a left wing organization and they filed the lawsuit. I guess we can say that those Republicans came up with the plan and Democrats are executing it.