Is Donald Trump disqualified? Only Congress can decide!

[MagicMike]

Wrong.
The law is clear, and there is nothing remotely legal about any of the charges against Trump.
The laws on classified docs are presidential EOs that not only exempt all presidents, but allow presidents to give anyone, including themselves, permanent copies of any classified docs they want.
It is illegal to claim an unofficial valuation could possibly be fraud, since banks are required by law to do their own appraisals.
It is perfectly legal for a president to write off hush money on taxes.
Jean Carroll volunteered to get naked and model lingerie.

Fake news.

 

[Rigby5]

They are not making Federal law or enforcing federal law.

That are controlling their own elective process.

Your long winded opinion was just that

Opinion

Wrong.
There is no state legislation they are going by.
They are illegally misinterpreting and misapplying the 14th amendment, which they not only do not have the authority to do, but would require a trial since you can't infringe upon the rights of an individual to be on the ballot without proof beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt over insurrection, which requires a conviction in court.

 

[toobfreak]

Because these are the jurisdictions where the crimes were committed dummy.
Where would you prefer the trials occur?

In a place as prescribed by law where both the judge and jury are IMPARTIAL, guided only by the EVIDENCE. ALL of the evidence.

Since 2018, every one of Trump's hearings, investigations, impeachments committees and trials have all been in totally biased, hostile settings with preconceived outcomes where the evidence was lied about, manipulated and exculpatory evidence withheld.

Sometimes, he didn't even get representation nor the chance to cross examine the testimony!

That flies in the face of everything American jurisprudence stands for.

If Trump is so obviously guilty, asshole, then why do you cheat at every chance you get?

If Trump is so obviously guilty, why don't you think you can win a conviction in a fair, open and neutral setting?

Instead, you try to gag the defendant from even being able to present his evidence or to defend himself.

Why don't you just come out and admit this is another one of your KGB show trials set on a drumhead?

 

[Clipper]

Well that's incorrect, but you're missing the point. A state's ballot access rules do not create any implication on a person's qualifications under the federal constitution. At best, Maine and Colorado can decide whether Donald is qualified to appear on their states' ballots. But they have no say in whether he's qualified to another term in the White House.

I don't want to see that man-child anywhere near the Oval Office again. But this the law.

I don't give a shit what they bleeeeeved. That didn't give them the right to beat police officers, maraud thru the Capital hunting down members of Congress & the V.P., steal documents etc, & defame that building & destroy public property.

If they had the right to do that LEGALLY, cite a law on the books outlining it.

 

[Nobody911]

The Disqualification Clause of the 14th Amendment (section 3) states that anyone who previously took an oath to support the constitution of the United States and then committed insurrection "against the same" is barred from serving in pretty much any kind of high office in either the federal or state governments. Section 5 further states that Congress has the power to enforce the provisions of the 14th amendment.

And indeed Congress has utilized that power with multiple laws. The Enforcement Act of 1870 was passed under the section 5 power of the 14th amendment, and though it's since been amended, this part is still in force today:



All things considered, this is a rather weak means of enforcement, as it merely restates the constitution. Congress could, for example, legislate that no person who has committed insurrection or rebellion may appear on any ballot for office, and that no vote for such person shall be counted, to include the votes of electors for President and Vice President, so on and so force. But they have chosen not to do so, for better or worse.

This, therefore, leaves very little available to be done at the federal level during the preparations for an election. At the state level some may be tempted to believe that much more can be done. But this is, at best, a foolish endeavor into partisanship. It would amount to proverbial ballot gerrymandering.

States are not the proper venue to fight federal battles. The constitution does not generally permit or tolerate states attempting to wield matters of federal power. We see that in the recent dust up over Texas attempting to set its own immigration policies. Going back a few decades the Supreme Court made it clear in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton that states have no power to legislate term limits for their own members of Congress, or otherwise enact qualifications more restrictive than what the US Constitution sets.

The Court's reasoning is fairly simple: The federal government did not exist prior to the ratification of the constitution, any power the states might possess in regards to its own members of Congress stems from the constitution itself, but the constitution does not grant states the power to enact term limits for Congressional office, therefore the states cannot possibly have reserved a previously nonexistent power through the 10th amendment and since the constitution did not grant them the new power to enact term limits for service in Congress no such power exists.

Also of note is that the constitution explicitly states that each house of Congress will be the judge of its own members' qualifications. Clearly, the constitution envisions only the federal government can rightly determine any question over a person's constitutional qualifications to hold a federal office. This fact is further reflected in the constitution mechanics for the Electoral College, and its contingencies for vacancies.

The constitution grants the power to choose electors to the states, by any means they wish, except that anyone holding a public federal office is excluded (once again notice the way the constitution draws lines between federal officials and state officials co-mingling their respective duties). While the states certainly can create their own legislation that might deprive people from appearing on the ballot for allegedly committing whatever that state thinks constitutes insurrection against the US for purposes of the 14th amendment. But the state's action would have absolutely no real bearing on the person's eligibility under the constitution because states have no power to set or test qualifications for federal offices.

Instead, the constitution positively anticipates the possibility that a person could win a Presidential election even though they might not be constitutionally qualified. The 20th amendment demonstrates this, as it prescribed contingencies for that very possibility.



Furthermore, while state laws may try to force electors to be faithful, that is an entirely state matter. The constitution has no conception of this within its own understanding of how the mechanisms of the federal government are designed. Instead, the constitution only knows that, as described in the 12th amendment, each elector casts separate ballots for President and Vice President. A key detail that is demanded by the constitution is the prohibition on electors against voting for two people from their own state. The constitution includes an explicit prohibition on who electors can vote for. This is important because we cannot infer additional prohibitions that aren't also explicitly stated. While the constitution states that no person not a natural born citizen, or under the age of 35, can serve as President, the constitution does not anywhere state that electors are prohibited from voting a person unless they have first verified the person is constitutionally qualified.

In conclusion, Congress has the power under the 14th amendment to enact robust measures that would affirmatively prevent and bar insurrectionists like Donald Trump from even being a candidate for public office. However, they have chosen not to do so, for better or worse. As a result, the only mechanisms available are the largely toothless Section 2383 statute, and the mechanisms under the constitution. The constitution clearly envisions the possibility for a person to become President elect even though they do not meet the constitutional qualifications. And those mechanisms are what will have to be followed.

The final decision regarding the disqualification of Donald Trump from holding federal or state office, including the presidency, under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, is a matter of legal and constitutional interpretation. This decision has the potential to have major ramifications for the 2024 election.

The debate over Trump's disqualification centers on the interpretation and application of the 14th Amendment, particularly Section 3, which disqualifies individuals from holding office if they previously swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and then participated in an insurrection or rebellion. The decision could potentially involve the Supreme Court, as it has been mentioned as the final destination for the burgeoning movement to remove the former president from the ballot in 2024.

In summary, the final decision regarding Donald Trump's disqualification from holding federal or state office, including the presidency, under the 14th Amendment, could potentially involve the Supreme Court and is a matter of legal and constitutional interpretation.

==> Well, who, in the universe, knows full well about the Supreme Court's revolving door? lol.

Sources :

1. The case for Donald Trump's disqualification under the 14th Amendment - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

2. It’s Time to Take Trump’s Disqualification From the Presidency Seriously

 

[Clipper]

It'll be more fun to see you spazzing out and pissing your panties after all your bullshit fails and Trump is inaugurated on January 20, 205.

That won't happen anymore then it did in 2020, unless Putin does a better job helping his buddy Trump win then he did in 2020. How's it feel knowing a murderous thug like Putin wants his bff Trump to win?

Makes ya wonder, right Ace?

 

[MAGA Macho Man]

They didn't.

Yes they did.

 

[Clipper]

You left out the words 'manufactured bullshit' mountains of useless crap that will fall apart under the scrutiny of fair judicial review.

If Trump is so guilty, then why are you trying him in the most hostile, anti-Trump locations with juries filled only with anti-Trumpers?

Afraid you can't get a conviction in a fair setting???

Oh really? When was the jury picked? The jurisdiction is Washinton D.C. where Trump & his crew plotted to overturn the election. Duh!

 

[justoffal]

The Disqualification Clause of the 14th Amendment (section 3) states that anyone who previously took an oath to support the constitution of the United States and then committed insurrection "against the same" is barred from serving in pretty much any kind of high office in either the federal or state governments. Section 5 further states that Congress has the power to enforce the provisions of the 14th amendment.

And indeed Congress has utilized that power with multiple laws. The Enforcement Act of 1870 was passed under the section 5 power of the 14th amendment, and though it's since been amended, this part is still in force today:



All things considered, this is a rather weak means of enforcement, as it merely restates the constitution. Congress could, for example, legislate that no person who has committed insurrection or rebellion may appear on any ballot for office, and that no vote for such person shall be counted, to include the votes of electors for President and Vice President, so on and so force. But they have chosen not to do so, for better or worse.

This, therefore, leaves very little available to be done at the federal level during the preparations for an election. At the state level some may be tempted to believe that much more can be done. But this is, at best, a foolish endeavor into partisanship. It would amount to proverbial ballot gerrymandering.

States are not the proper venue to fight federal battles. The constitution does not generally permit or tolerate states attempting to wield matters of federal power. We see that in the recent dust up over Texas attempting to set its own immigration policies. Going back a few decades the Supreme Court made it clear in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton that states have no power to legislate term limits for their own members of Congress, or otherwise enact qualifications more restrictive than what the US Constitution sets.

The Court's reasoning is fairly simple: The federal government did not exist prior to the ratification of the constitution, any power the states might possess in regards to its own members of Congress stems from the constitution itself, but the constitution does not grant states the power to enact term limits for Congressional office, therefore the states cannot possibly have reserved a previously nonexistent power through the 10th amendment and since the constitution did not grant them the new power to enact term limits for service in Congress no such power exists.

Also of note is that the constitution explicitly states that each house of Congress will be the judge of its own members' qualifications. Clearly, the constitution envisions only the federal government can rightly determine any question over a person's constitutional qualifications to hold a federal office. This fact is further reflected in the constitution mechanics for the Electoral College, and its contingencies for vacancies.

The constitution grants the power to choose electors to the states, by any means they wish, except that anyone holding a public federal office is excluded (once again notice the way the constitution draws lines between federal officials and state officials co-mingling their respective duties). While the states certainly can create their own legislation that might deprive people from appearing on the ballot for allegedly committing whatever that state thinks constitutes insurrection against the US for purposes of the 14th amendment. But the state's action would have absolutely no real bearing on the person's eligibility under the constitution because states have no power to set or test qualifications for federal offices.

Instead, the constitution positively anticipates the possibility that a person could win a Presidential election even though they might not be constitutionally qualified. The 20th amendment demonstrates this, as it prescribed contingencies for that very possibility.



Furthermore, while state laws may try to force electors to be faithful, that is an entirely state matter. The constitution has no conception of this within its own understanding of how the mechanisms of the federal government are designed. Instead, the constitution only knows that, as described in the 12th amendment, each elector casts separate ballots for President and Vice President. A key detail that is demanded by the constitution is the prohibition on electors against voting for two people from their own state. The constitution includes an explicit prohibition on who electors can vote for. This is important because we cannot infer additional prohibitions that aren't also explicitly stated. While the constitution states that no person not a natural born citizen, or under the age of 35, can serve as President, the constitution does not anywhere state that electors are prohibited from voting a person unless they have first verified the person is constitutionally qualified.

In conclusion, Congress has the power under the 14th amendment to enact robust measures that would affirmatively prevent and bar insurrectionists like Donald Trump from even being a candidate for public office. However, they have chosen not to do so, for better or worse. As a result, the only mechanisms available are the largely toothless Section 2383 statute, and the mechanisms under the constitution. The constitution clearly envisions the possibility for a person to become President elect even though they do not meet the constitutional qualifications. And those mechanisms are what will have to be followed.

Fantastic post....

Jo

 

[MAGA Macho Man]

I don't give a shit what they bleeeeeved. That didn't give them the right to beat police officers, maraud thru the Capital hunting down members of Congress & the V.P., steal documents etc, & defame that building & destroy public property.

If they had the right to do that LEGALLY, cite a law on the books outlining it.

That was Antifa dressed as Trump supporters beating the police. The cops were beating peaceful Trump supporters.

 

[Clipper]

That was Antifa dressed as Trump supporters beating the police. The cops were beating peaceful Trump supporters.

You forgot to mention how Trump was sent by god to save us.

I mean after all, you can see that by his statesman like outbursts on X. & TS.

BTW, you're out of your mind.

 

[MagicMike]

Yes they did.

Link?

 

[White 6]

All fabricated bogus evidence.

Believing it is"All fabricated bogus evidence." Now that is what I call a Trump Derangement Syndrome. You guys sound more TDS all the time.

 

[MagicMike]

In a place as prescribed by law where both the judge and jury are IMPARTIAL, guided only by the EVIDENCE. ALL of the evidence.

Since 2018, every one of Trump's hearings, investigations, impeachments committees and trials have all been in totally biased, hostile settings with preconceived outcomes where the evidence was lied about, manipulated and exculpatory evidence withheld.

Sometimes, he didn't even get representation nor the chance to cross examine the testimony!

That flies in the face of everything American jurisprudence stands for.

If Trump is so obviously guilty, asshole, then why do you cheat at every chance you get?

If Trump is so obviously guilty, why don't you think you can win a conviction in a fair, open and neutral setting?

Instead, you try to gag the defendant from even being able to present his evidence or to defend himself.

Why don't you just come out and admit this is another one of your KGB show trials set on a drumhead?

Would you like some cheese to go with that WHINE snowflake?

 

[White 6]

The 14th amendment was intended to prevent state abuse of the rights of individuals.
So then it forces the US to act in the defense of individual rights.
The SCOTUS does not then have the option of leaving it up to the states.
The SCOTUS is required by the 14th amendment, to prevent the states from infringing on the rights not only of candidates like Trump, but all voters who want to vote for him as well.

The Supreme Court recognizes very few requirements on it, unless clearly spelled out, in The Constitution. Though they recognize lots of rights, especially theirs. One of their favorites is the right to decline to even hear a case, leaving it where it stands on things they would rather not be involved in.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

This will be decided: either SCOTUS decides, or it lets appellate court decision stand.

Congress can only bow its head in submission.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Wrong.
There is no state legislation they are going by.
They are illegally misinterpreting and misapplying the 14th amendment, which they not only do not have the authority to do, but would require a trial since you can't infringe upon the rights of an individual to be on the ballot without proof beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt over insurrection, which requires a conviction in court.

There is not "right to be on the ballot".

If there were, then an individual could rock up and say "I want to be on the ballot" and there would be NOTHING the state could do to stop them.

As it is, Ballot access for presidential candidates

Anyone under 35 cannot be on the ballot. The US Constitution says IT'S NOT A RIGHT. Rights are limited to minors, but not to adults.

The US Constitution says if you've served two terms, you cannot be on the ballot. If it were a right, that would be a contradictory piece of Constitution.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The 14th Amendment does not require a conviction in court.

 

[Kruska]

Wrong.
It is allowing massive voter fraud that is illegal.

Are there any law or court cases pertaining to the matter? brought in by MAGA's? NO - then it's just unfounded gossip

The law allows any and all means possible for citizens to try to end an illegal practice by government.

No - the law does not simply allow for "any" means. Especially not, if there is no proof towards accusations of "illegal"

Like the protest over Vietnam, etc.
The riots were perfectly legal because the acts the government was doing were illegal.

No - even demonstrations need to be permitted. Any protest needs to follow the law. Those that did not, faced the wrath of the law and it's enforcers. Check yourself onto how many e.g. Anti-Vietnam protestors were beaten up, arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned.

We all know there has always been voter fraud, like the hanging chads, butterfly ballots, etc., from 2000.
The only thing that is changed is that now by using computers voting machines, it is harder to catch the voter fraud.

The election occurred under the TRUMP administration - you want to blame or claim anything, you need to address his administration first.

 

[CowboyTed]

The legal contortions those guys and girls are going through to disqualify Trump are hilarious. It's almost like they're trying to rewrite the US Constitution, as if it were a "living, breathing document.

I think that is were you are very wrong... Original text is very clear, if there is evidence of Trump helping insurrectionists then he is disqualified.