If you Think Trump is Ineligible to be President, Even if Elected, Who do You See Making that Call?

[Seymour Flops]

Take it off of Trump for a hypothetical: Suppose a person won the popular and the electoral votes, but a week later, it turned out that they were ineligible. Born in a foreign country, and not even old enough. Living under false identity the whole time.

What do you see happening between then and inauguration day? Who steps in to say authoritatively, "No, this guy can't be president, his opponent will be sworn in?" Or would it be his opponent? Would Congress decide? I'm sure some process would be followed. If a person is really ineligible, they cannot serve.

But . . . imagine that process being followed based on the absurdly ginned up charges against Trump, none of which so far renders him ineligible according to the Constitution. So how do you see it happening, exactly?

Or if the talk of Trump being "ineligible" is pure fantasy, and I'm dumb to ask, say so.

 

[Independentthinker]

Take it off of Trump for a hypothetical: Suppose a person won the popular and the electoral votes, but a week later, it turned out that they were ineligible. Born in a foreign country, and not even old enough. Living under false identity the whole time.

What do you see happening between then and inauguration day? Who steps in to say authoritatively, "No, this guy can't be president, his opponent will be sworn in?" Or would it be his opponent? Would Congress decide? I'm sure some process would be followed. If a person is really ineligible, they cannot serve.

But . . . imagine that process being followed based on the absurdly ginned up charges against Trump, none of which so far renders him ineligible according to the Constitution. So how do you see it happening, exactly?

Or if the talk of Trump being "ineligible" is pure fantasy, and I'm dumb to ask, say so.

Good question.

 

[strollingbones]

Enforcing the 14th Amendment’s Bar on Insurrectionist Officers and Candidates | ACS

www.acslaw.org

 

[berg80]

Enforcing the 14th Amendment’s Bar on Insurrectionist Officers and Candidates | ACS

www.acslaw.org

However, professors Baude and Paulson point out that the language of the 14th Amendment may be read more broadly than a statute, since its purpose was to disqualify someone from office who has violated his previous oath to support the Constitution.

The case for disqualification is strong. There is abundant evidence that Trump deliberately set out to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election result, calling it ‘stolen’ and ‘rigged’; that Trump (with the assistance of others) pursued numerous schemes to effectuate this objective; that among these were efforts to alter the vote counts of several states by force, by fraud or by intended intimidation of state election officials, to pressure or persuade state legislatures and /or courts unlawfully to overturn state election results, to assemble and induce others to submit bogus slates of competing state electors, to persuade or pressure Congress to refuse to count electors’ votes submitted by several states, and finally, to pressure the Vice President to overturn state election results in his role of presiding over the counting of electors’ votes. . . The bottom line is that Donald Trump both “engaged in” “insurrection or rebellion” and gave “aid and comfort” to others engaging in such conduct, within the original meaning of those terms as employed in Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.

A Summary of the Baude-Paulsen Paper on Donald Trump’s Ineligibility to Run for President

A 126-page detailed legal analysis argues Donald Trump—who previously had sworn to support the Constitution at his inauguration—betrayed his oath of office and is no longer eligible for the presidency.

www.aei.org

 

[Seymour Flops]

Enforcing the 14th Amendment’s Bar on Insurrectionist Officers and Candidates | ACS

www.acslaw.org

I thank you for your response. I'm surprised there have not been more, given how convinced so many posters are that Trump is ineligible. I normally don't bother clicking when a poster provides just a link, but with the paucity of replies, I went ahead.

My counter:

a) In the four indictments and dozens of counts that Trump is charged with, not one is about engaging in insurrection or rebellion.
b) Even if he were indicted and convicted for that, from your link:

There is currently no federal statutory authority to enforce Section Three, and if this deficiency is not addressed many problems will follow.

 

[Seymour Flops]

However, professors Baude and Paulson point out that the language of the 14th Amendment may be read more broadly than a statute, since its purpose was to disqualify someone from office who has violated his previous oath to support the Constitution.

The case for disqualification is strong. There is abundant evidence that Trump deliberately set out to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election result, calling it ‘stolen’ and ‘rigged’; that Trump (with the assistance of others) pursued numerous schemes to effectuate this objective; that among these were efforts to alter the vote counts of several states by force, by fraud or by intended intimidation of state election officials, to pressure or persuade state legislatures and /or courts unlawfully to overturn state election results, to assemble and induce others to submit bogus slates of competing state electors, to persuade or pressure Congress to refuse to count electors’ votes submitted by several states, and finally, to pressure the Vice President to overturn state election results in his role of presiding over the counting of electors’ votes. . . The bottom line is that Donald Trump both “engaged in” “insurrection or rebellion” and gave “aid and comfort” to others engaging in such conduct, within the original meaning of those terms as employed in Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.

A Summary of the Baude-Paulsen Paper on Donald Trump’s Ineligibility to Run for President

A 126-page detailed legal analysis argues Donald Trump—who previously had sworn to support the Constitution at his inauguration—betrayed his oath of office and is no longer eligible for the presidency.

www.aei.org

If Trump wins the electoral college, won't the remedy then be for Democrats to pressure Congress to refuse to count electors’ votes submitted by several states?

Thus committing the same act that this paragraph claims is disqualifying? So, only Democrats with no presidential ambitions at all will be asked to do it?

 

[berg80]

I thank you for your response. I'm surprised there have not been more, given how convinced so many posters are that Trump is ineligible. I normally don't bother clicking when a poster provides just a link, but with the paucity of replies, I went ahead.

My counter:

a) In the four indictments and dozens of counts that Trump is charged with, not one is about engaging in insurrection or rebellion.
b) Even if he were indicted and convicted for that, from your link:

There is currently no federal statutory authority to enforce Section Three, and if this deficiency is not addressed many problems will follow.

“The disqualification clause operates independently of any such criminal proceedings and, indeed, also independently of impeachment proceedings and of congressional legislation. The clause was designed to operate directly and immediately upon those who betray their oaths to the Constitution, whether by taking up arms to overturn our government or by waging war on our government by attempting to overturn a presidential election through a bloodless coup.
"The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again" #ELB

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Only the voter can make that call, and they will next year if he is on a ticket.

If in prison and then elected, his VP and cabinet can uninstall him with a 25th Amendment process.

 

[Seymour Flops]

“The disqualification clause operates independently of any such criminal proceedings and, indeed, also independently of impeachment proceedings and of congressional legislation. The clause was designed to operate directly and immediately upon those who betray their oaths to the Constitution, whether by taking up arms to overturn our government or by waging war on our government by attempting to overturn a presidential election through a bloodless coup.
"The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again" #ELB

You still have not said what you see happening if Trump - ineligible in the opinion of that writer - is elected.

 

[strollingbones]

14 th prevents him from being on ballet

 

[Seymour Flops]

Only the voter can make that call, and they will next year if he is on a ticket.

If in prison and then elected, his VP and cabinet can uninstall him with a 25th Amendment process.

I'm sure Trump will pick a VP and cabinet likely to do that.

Trump won't ever go to prison, of course. That is a masturbatory fantasy. If the fantasy came true, Trump would have an Oval Office Annex in a prison like this:

FPC Alderson​

Federal Prison Camp Alderson — known as FPC Alderson and Camp Cupcake — is a minimum-security facility in Alderson, West Virginia. It became the first Federal Bureau of Prisons facility to hold female prisoners exclusively and has remained that way since its opening in 1928.

The majority of inmates at FPC Alderson are those who have committed nonviolent or white-collar crimes. There are no armed perimeter guards at the location. The facility is similar to a boarding school with a more robust education system.

FPC Alderson is considered one of the best minimum-security federal prisons in the United States today, particularly because of its low violence, freedom of inmate movement, and many inmate activities.

He'd either take the Warden's office, or have one built for him. He'd Facetime with Vivek and keep the country running his way. I just hope he builds the freaking wall this time. What will he have to lose?

 

[Seymour Flops]

14 th prevents him from being on ballet

Swan Lake?

When he is on the ballot, as of course he will be, then what?

Who will step in to take him off?

 

[BluesLegend]

When the Trump SCOTUS hears legal arguments of multiple Dem leaders who have done the exact same things without consequence the Dem's case will be laughed out of court.

 

[Seymour Flops]

When the Trump SCOTUS hears legal arguments of multiple Dem leaders who have done the exact same things without consequence the Dem's case will be laughed out of court.

Yes, that is exactly what will happen.

Trump has not "lost" all of his election cases. Courts refused to take them, because no judge wants to decide an election over the voters, even if there had been fraud. The USSC took heat in 2000 for stopping the obviously unlawful things that Dems were doing. Rightfully so, (the heat, I mean). The Constitution leaves it to the states to determine the "manner of chusing electors."

The USSC is certainly not going to overturn it when the party that does not commit fraud wins. That is absurd.

In order to have the results over-turned, Dems would have to do some of the same things they accuse Trump of doing, including asking the VP not to certify electors. Difference is that it was perfectly legal when Trump asked Pence to do it, so the congress passed a law against it.

Hoisted on their own petard!

 

[berg80]

When the Trump SCOTUS hears legal arguments of multiple Dem leaders who have done the exact same things without consequence the Dem's case will be laughed out of court.

Dem leaders have not done anything close to what Trump did. Furthermore, the first article putting forth the argument for the application of the 14th A was written by two conservative legal scholars.

A Summary of the Baude-Paulsen Paper on Donald Trump’s Ineligibility to Run for President

A 126-page detailed legal analysis argues Donald Trump—who previously had sworn to support the Constitution at his inauguration—betrayed his oath of office and is no longer eligible for the presidency.

www.aei.org

 

[berg80]

Courts refused to take them, because no judge wants to decide an election over the voters, even if there had been fraud.

Courts refused to take them due to a lack of credible evidence.