States may move to keep Trump off the ballot based on 14th Amendment disqualification (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    superchuck500

    U.S. Blues
    Joined
    Mar 26, 2019
    Messages
    5,020
    Reaction score
    12,819
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Offline
    Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:

    1692502254516.png


    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:


     
    Last edited:
    DENVER (AP) — Attorneys for former President Donald Trump argue that an attempt to bar him from the 2024 ballot under a rarely used “insurrection” clause of the Constitution should be dismissed as a violation of his freedom of speech.

    The lawyers made the argument in a filing posted Monday by a Colorado court in one of the most significant of a series of challenges to Trump’s candidacy under the Civil War-era clause in the 14th Amendment. The challenges rest on Trump’s attempts to overturn his 2020 loss to Democrat Joe Biden and his role leading up to the violent Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

    “At no time do Petitioners argue that President Trump did anything other than engage in either speaking or refusing to speak for their argument that he engaged in the purported insurrection,” wrote attorney Geoffrey Blue.

    Trump also will argue that the clause doesn’t apply to him because “the Fourteenth Amendment applies to one who ‘engaged in insurrection or rebellion,’ not one who only ‘instigated’ any action,” Blue wrote.…….

     
    DENVER (AP) — Attorneys for former President Donald Trump argue that an attempt to bar him from the 2024 ballot under a rarely used “insurrection” clause of the Constitution should be dismissed as a violation of his freedom of speech.

    The lawyers made the argument in a filing posted Monday by a Colorado court in one of the most significant of a series of challenges to Trump’s candidacy under the Civil War-era clause in the 14th Amendment. The challenges rest on Trump’s attempts to overturn his 2020 loss to Democrat Joe Biden and his role leading up to the violent Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

    “At no time do Petitioners argue that President Trump did anything other than engage in either speaking or refusing to speak for their argument that he engaged in the purported insurrection,” wrote attorney Geoffrey Blue.

    Trump also will argue that the clause doesn’t apply to him because “the Fourteenth Amendment applies to one who ‘engaged in insurrection or rebellion,’ not one who only ‘instigated’ any action,” Blue wrote.…….

    What, do they think he has to actually pick up a gun and fire on Fort Sumter?
     
    If the GOP really doesn't want to be saddled with Trump and his endless baggage, they should be supporting these cases. Get him removed from enough ballots and they can throw up their hands and say "Welp, he can't win, so we need to nominate someone else."
    they are way to terrified of the pathetic orange Cheeto.
     
    because if they go along with it, he'll threaten to run independent and kill any hope they have .

    The most probable scenario is Trump plays kingmaker for the GOP this cycle having already been convicted. He will get to select the GOP nominee, and be promised a pardon from all federal crimes.

    We should probably resurrect the Republican party thread. They are about to be a interesting intersection. A lot of the more competent players are all sitting out right, and may come back in a post Trump era.
     
    In two courtrooms 900 miles apart, judges next week will begin to weigh an unprecedented and historic question: Is former president Donald Trump eligible to run for office again given his alleged role in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol?


    Starting on Monday in Denver, a week-long hearing featuring witnesses and legal scholars will explore whether Jan. 6 qualified as an insurrection, which could bar Trump from the ballot in Colorado.

    On Thursday, the Minnesota Supreme Court will hear arguments about whether an obscure part of the Constitution might keep Trump off the ballot there. In coming weeks, courts around the country might hold similar proceedings.


    The legal strategy, pursued by an unusual mix of conservatives and liberals, is unlike any tried before against a candidate for president. Legal experts are deeply divided on the merit of the theory, but even its backers acknowledge they face stiff challenges.

    The effort hinges on an arcane provision of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which was adopted after the Civil War and is renowned for protecting Americans’ civil rights.

    The amendment’s lesser-known Section 3 states that people cannot hold office if they have previously taken an oath to support the Constitution and then engage in an insurrection or provide help to the nation’s enemies.

    It was adopted to prevent former Confederate soldiers from gaining office and using their authority to undermine Reconstruction. Until now, it has been little-considered since that era.

    “It comes out of nowhere and moved from being a really off-the-wall possibility to a very serious potential disruption of the presidential contest,” said Kurt Lash, a law professor at the University of Richmond who wrote a recent law review article exploring the ambiguities of Section 3.


    Trump has cast these lawsuits as “nonsense” and “election interference.”


    “This is like a banana republic,” Trump told conservative radio host Dan Bongino last month.

    The debate over interpretations of that section will move into the courtroom on Monday, as the hearing begins in Denver over a lawsuit brought by Republican and independent voters, including a former GOP leader in the Colorado legislature. It’s unclear who will testify, but witnesses could include people who saw the attack on the Capitol unfold before them.


    “A five-day hearing — I’m a little blown away by this prospect,” said Derek Muller, a University of Notre Dame law professor who has closely followed the cases. “Can you imagine this process happening simultaneously in 50 states around the country? It’s a wild process to think about.”


    The lawsuits put an unusual wrinkle into a presidential contest that is already unpredictable. Trump is trying to fight off criminal charges in four cases, two of them centered on his efforts to reverse the 2020 election……

    “Election officials now already are under extraordinary pressure and are distrusted and caught up in the political crossfire,” he said. “Many of them are nervous about having this new thing dropped on their laps.”

    In all the cases, courts will have to consider an array of novel questions, some of them mundane and some of them philosophical.

    Is the president an officer “under the United States?” (If not, Section 3 does not apply to the presidency.) Is the president an officer “of the United States?” (If not, the oath Trump took when he served as president doesn’t make him subject to Section 3.)

    Did the attack on the Capitol qualify as an insurrection? (If it didn’t, Trump can get on the ballot.) If it was an insurrection, is it one Trump engaged in? (If he didn’t, he can run again.)…..,


     
    Saw the photo linked to the top article on the MAP home page this morning and thought, "wait a minute, I think I know that guy" (referring to the guy arguing to keep Trump off the ballot in Colorado). And I do -- I used to work and play softball with his wife, many, many years ago!

     
    What would happen to already elected officials if the courts despite the longshot case should decide that Trump cant be on the ballot? There are a bunch of them in congress..
     
    Personally, I think it's a fools errand to go through this 14th amendment nonsense.

    It all rests on one simple concept. That Trump, "having previously taken an oath, as an officer of the United States, to support the Constitution" shall not hold any office.

    There are multiple problems here. First off, and most relevant is that the Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that the President is not an officer of the United States, and provided references to portions of the constitution that support it. For example, the impeachment clause says that the president, vice president "and ALL officers of the United States" can be removed from office by impeachment. It does not say ALL OTHER officers, so it implies that the president is not an officer. It also says that the president appoints the officers of the United States.

    Also, there is the question of whether or not the authors of the 14th amendment intended for it to apply to the President. If they did, why did they specifically name Senators, Representatives, and electors of president as being positions that the amendment applies to, and then lump President (the highest elected office) in with "an officer of the United States." There is also the question of "support" that Trump has raised. The authors of the amendment knew the verbiage of the Presidential oath of office, and the oath everyone else takes, and they specifically included the word "support" in the amendment. That word appears in the oath everyone else takes, but not in the presidential oath. Why not say "an oath to the constitution"?
     
    Personally, I think it's a fools errand to go through this 14th amendment nonsense.

    It all rests on one simple concept. That Trump, "having previously taken an oath, as an officer of the United States, to support the Constitution" shall not hold any office.

    There are multiple problems here. First off, and most relevant is that the Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that the President is not an officer of the United States, and provided references to portions of the constitution that support it. For example, the impeachment clause says that the president, vice president "and ALL officers of the United States" can be removed from office by impeachment. It does not say ALL OTHER officers, so it implies that the president is not an officer. It also says that the president appoints the officers of the United States.

    Also, there is the question of whether or not the authors of the 14th amendment intended for it to apply to the President. If they did, why did they specifically name Senators, Representatives, and electors of president as being positions that the amendment applies to, and then lump President (the highest elected office) in with "an officer of the United States." There is also the question of "support" that Trump has raised. The authors of the amendment knew the verbiage of the Presidential oath of office, and the oath everyone else takes, and they specifically included the word "support" in the amendment. That word appears in the oath everyone else takes, but not in the presidential oath. Why not say "an oath to the constitution"?
    That is some serious nit-picking around what is clearly the intent of the Amendment.

    But I wouldn't put it past a judge to be that parsimonious.
     
    DENVER (AP) — Then-President Donald Trump could have mobilized the National Guard and other federal agencies to protect the U.S. Capitol once violence broke out on Jan. 6, 2021, a law professor testified Tuesday as a case to bar the former president from the 2024 ballot moved into a new phase.

    William Banks, a Syracuse University law professor and expert in national security law, said that once the attack on the Capitol began, Trump had options he did not use.

    “He should respond to his constitutional responsibilities to protect the security of the United States when there’s an assault on our democratic process,” Banks said of Trump.

    Banks was testifying as a witness for a group of Colorado voters who want to bar Trump from the ballot for allegedly violating his oath to uphold the Constitution in his attempt to overturn his 2020 election loss. They cite a rarely used clause in the 14th Amendment, adopted just after the Civil War, that prohibits those who “engaged in insurrection” against the Constitution from holding higher office.…..

     
    That is some serious nit-picking around what is clearly the intent of the Amendment.

    I'm not sure it is. I don't think the authors of that amendment thought about including the president at all. The intent of the amendment was to keep the southern states from sending former Confederate officers into the Senate and House. I don't think they thought for a moment a Confederate officer would get elected president. The fact that they named, specifically, Senator, Representative, and state appointed presidential electors but not President or Vice President would be a good indication of that.

    But I wouldn't put it past a judge to be that parsimonious.
    It's not really parsimonious. As I said, the Supreme Court has already ruled that the President is not an officer of the United States, so saying the 14th amendment does not apply to the president would be in line with that ruling.
     
    CNN) — The Minnesota Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected an attempt to block Donald Trump from the state’s GOP primary ballot next year based on the 14th Amendment’s “insurrection clause” but said the challengers can try again to block from the general election ballot if the former president wins the Republican nomination.

    The 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, says US officials who take an oath to uphold the Constitution are banned from future office if they “engaged in insurrection.” But the Constitution doesn’t say how to enforce the ban, and it has only been applied twice since 1919, which is why many experts view these challenges as a long shot.

    At oral arguments earlier this month, several of the justices appeared skeptical of removing Trump from the ballot. One justice said it might be prudent to exercise “judicial restraint,” while another nodded to the idea that the voters should probably be the ones who decide whether Trump returns to the presidency.

    Similar anti-Trump challenges are still ongoing in Colorado and Michigan. The cases have been handled by left-leaning advocacy groups, but a bipartisan array of legal scholars and former jurists have endorsed their attempts to disqualify Trump from office……..


     
    DETROIT (AP) — A Michigan judge ruled Tuesday that former President Donald Trump will remain on the state’s primary ballot, dealing a blow to the effort to stop Trump’s candidacy with a Civil War-era Constitutional clause.

    It marks the second time in a week that a state court declined to remove Trump from a primary ballot under the insurrection provision of the 14th Amendment.

    In Michigan, Court of Claims Judge James Redford rejected arguments that Trump’s role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol meant the court had to declare him ineligible for the presidency. Redford wrote that, because Trump followed state law in qualifying for the primary ballot, he cannot remove the former president.

    Additionally, he said it should be up to Congress to decide whether Trump is disqualified under the section of the U.S. Constitution that bars from office a person who “engaged in insurrection.”……

     
    DENVER (AP) — A Colorado judge on Friday rejected an effort to keep former President Donald Trump from appearing on the state’s primary ballot, the latest blow to groups seeking to block his run for another term using a Civil War-era Constitutional amendment that prevents anyone who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office.

    The lawsuit, brought by a left-leaning group on behalf of a group of Republican and independent Colorado voters, contended that Trump’s actions related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol ran afoul of the 14th Amendment.

    The decision by District Judge Sarah B. Wallace is the third ruling in a little over a week against lawsuits seeking to knock Trump off the ballot by citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

    The Minnesota Supreme Court last week said Trump could remain on the primary ballot because political parties have sole choice over who appears, while a Michigan judge ruled that Congress is the proper forum for deciding whether Section 3 applies to Trump.

    In her decision, Wallace said she found that the clause did not apply to Trump…….

     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom