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

[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

 

[MT15]

 

[MT15]

 

[cuddlemonkey]

SFL, do you think if they got a hold of Pelosi or Pence a number of others who were gonna certify the election, do you think they would have harmed them? or you think they would have just had a meaningful discussion?
and yes or no: does an insurrecion have to have guns in hand to be considered an insurrection?

I feel like this one is going to go unanswered.

 

[V Chip]

For one it wasn't an insurrection. It was a riot.

Nope, it was an insurrection. Multiple people have pled guilty to seditious conspiracy. One, Two, Oh heck, here is a list from the Dept of Justice. Seditious Conspiracy is basically insurrection without a violence component. It's difficult to prove "insurrection" in court and usually the seditious conspiracy is easier to prove and get convictions, so that's why it is used for convictions, but the violence inherent in Jan 6 is obvious and the event of Jan 6 is correctly called an insurrection.

For the application of the 14th Amendment, both terms fulfill the role. Anyone who engaged in the insurrection on the 6th or -- and this is the important part -- "or given aid or comfort" to those who did cannot run for office or be put into office. Trump -- even if never convicted -- absolutely did the giving aid or comfort to those who did.

Also, how do you determine someone committed a crime without due process?

This has been addressed many times, you just choose not to accept it.

I disagree. It was a riot. If it was an insurrection, why didn't Jack Smith charge Trump with inciting or participating in an insurrection?

Because that is harder to prove, AND Trump didn't take part in the violence or planning of the insurrection. He gave aid and comfort to those that did many times before and since (saying he will pardon those who participated is certainly giving them comfort just by itself), which is enough to apply the 14th Amendment.

I know it says officer and that's what I've posted multiple times. Where did I say it said office?

The 14th ammendment says officer and not office. I'm unclear about what your point is.

I think I misunderstood where you were talking about Office vs Officer in the 14th Amendment. I thought you were saying the "Officer" part from that SC case didn't apply to the phrase: "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..." But now I think you are applying it to the phrase: "having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States."

Assuming it is the latter now... it still doesn't work and here is why:

In that case, Roberts (and the court) were referring NOT to the 14th amendment phrase but to the Appointments Clause of the constitution that defined roles of the Executive Office. That case dealt with whether or not the President could fire some of these Officers, which it concluded that he could. The Roberts observation you keep quoting refers to Article 2 Section 2, NOT the 14th Amendment. Article 2 Section 2 refers to the people mentioned in the Appointments Clause -- those the President can appoint, some with the oversight of Congress and some without if Congress gives that power. Roberts was talking about that one specific section of the Constitution and in no way making a blanket statement that "anywhere the word 'officer' appears in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or Amendments it means the Officers of the United States as referenced in the Appointments Clause." That's a HUGE stretch to apply it that way.

That Reason link... of course they'll try and make it not apply to Trump. If the roles were reversed and this was for Biden, you know damned well they (and you) would be arguing that it absolutely applies to the President. And if it were reversed and this was for Biden, I would be right here arguing EXACTLY the same: the idea that the 14th amendment was created to be applied to every governmental official, elected or appointed, EXCEPT for the President (and maybe the VP) is preposterous.

I mean, if you took this tact, then any Governor of any state, or anyone who has never served in government but HAD been convicted of insurrection, or rebellion, or treason would be eligible to run for any office because the 14th Amendment would not apply to them according to what you are saying. Since a Governor (or a private citizen) might not have been 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" (since you are claiming "officer" is not elected, so executive officer of a State would not apply) then they could actually be convicted and still run under this weird interpretation.

 

[zztop]

This may have already been posted amongst all the sfl garbage, but in addition to the death threats, she apparently got swatted

Maine state official who removed Trump from ballot was targeted in swatting call at her home

A fake swatting call was made to the Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows' home. A man called emergency services saying he broke into a house, which turned out to be Bellows' home.

apnews.com

 

[cuddlemonkey]

This may have already been posted amongst all the sfl garbage, but in addition to the death threats, she apparently got swatted

Maine state official who removed Trump from ballot was targeted in swatting call at her home

A fake swatting call was made to the Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows' home. A man called emergency services saying he broke into a house, which turned out to be Bellows' home.

apnews.com

They've done it to Rick Scott and MTG as well. Idiots, each and every one.

 

[MT15]

 

[MT15]

 

[billm]

I knew democrat traitors would find a way to cheat.

 

[billm]

I feel like this one is going to go unanswered.

That's because democrats won't answer it. Insurrections need guns otherwise it's just a stupid riot.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

They came close to that, but it still would have been a riot.

Government drops charges against all inauguration protesters

"The solidarity we showed as defendants won out," said one activist whose charges were previously dropped.

www-nbcnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org

Was Antifa attacking the federal courthouse an insurrection or a riot?

were they trying to stop the official results of an election? were they trying to prevent Donald Trump from taking office?

are you comparing this to what happened on Jan 6th.

during which several store windows were broken and a parked limo set ablaze

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

That's because democrats won't answer it. Insurrections need guns otherwise it's just a stupid riot.

100% false.
i would love to see you attempt to prove your point..

 

[MT15]

That's because democrats won't answer it. Insurrections need guns otherwise it's just a stupid riot.

This is simply not true. There are several kinds of coups, only one of which is the military coup that you’re thinking of. This was an auto-coup, which is where a head of a country tries to take over, using illegal means, the powers of another branch of government in order to hold on to power he hasn’t earned.

Trump was trying to take over the power of Congress and prevent them from counting the Electoral Votes on Jan, 6. He had issued fake Electoral Vote certificates in states he didn’t win, and wanted to delay the actual vote to try to get people (Pence and others) to accept the fake ones and throw out the real ones. The office of President has no role in counting the Electoral Votes, but he tried to take it. Fake Elector certificates were the illegal means he tried to use.

He was trying to steal an election he had lost.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

I feel like this one is going to go unanswered.

no, he'll post some stupid irrelevant Tweets that have nothing but opinions from insurrection sympathisers who call it a tour..

 

[cuddlemonkey]

That's because democrats won't answer it. Insurrections need guns otherwise it's just a stupid riot.

The question was posed to a conservative Trump supporter. How about you? Can you answer it?

 

[MT15]

I knew democrat traitors would find a way to cheat.

Says the guy supporting the biggest cheater ever. Paid a kid to take his SAT, paid kids to write his papers in college, dodged the draft 5 times or was it 6?, cheated with his financial statements, insurance statements, taxes over his whole life, cheated poor people with his sham university, stole from his charity, overcharged the Secret Service for rooms during his one term in office.

How are people this oblivious?

 

[MT15]

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

i mean, that logic is hard to ignore