Is Donald Trump disqualified? Only Congress can decide!

[Dragonlady]

Quit being a damn traitor. Oh, wait. some people like monarchs like the Biden royalteetees. You're all about getting paid, and paid you get for betraying the best President this country has had in the last few decades. Take your little stilletto and cram it up your holster.

Biden is an elected official who acts like a public servant, not a dictator.

Trump is the WORST President in American history and it makes me sad that decent folks like you are being conned by this disgusting criminal conman.

 

[scruffy]

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

Congress can only bow its head in submission.

Fruitcake. ^^^

 

[Dragonlady]

So a state can make false claims if they want to remove a presidential candidate from their ballot? Ridiculous.

The state can make a decision based on a candidate's behaviour and rhetoric.

Trump continues to falsely claim the 2020 election was stolen, and to call on his supporters to attack anyone who claims otherwise. And his supporters continue attacking and threatening anyone who is holding Trump accountable.

Funny how the same party who chanted "LOCKK HER UP" for 4 years, is now having a real problem calling for Trump to be locked up even though the whole world watched him try to stage an insurrection.

DON'T DO THE CRIME IF YOU CAN'T DO THE TIME.

 

[blackhawk]

Rather Trump holds office again should be the decision of the voters.

 

[ColonelAngus]

How many hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian men has Biden killed?

You cult fucks are sick fucks.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Yeah, that is usually what a Marxists/Demofascist says when they start losing the argument about a Fascist government doing what ever it can to keep a popular opponent from winning the next election.

 

[Independent thinker]

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.

Interesting how there are those who would qualify as civil war insurrectionists who would later run in elections on ballots, win, and actually served in offices and yet the left are trying to keep Trump off.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, it only says that you cannot serve another term. If a state chooses to put Barack Obama and George W Bush on the ballot for 2024, that is their prerogative. It will be for the people of that state to petition their government if they have a problem with it.

Even then, there are plenty of other examples of where you can't be on the ballot.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Congress decided already, he was acquitted in the second impeachment.

.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Even then, there are plenty of other examples of where you can't be on the ballot.

Biden takes bribes. Of course he should be off the ballot.

 

[Dragonlady]

Rather Trump holds office again should be the decision of the voters.

They ALREADY MADE THAT DECISION, IN 2020!!!

 

[OKTexas]

The 14th Amendment has no requirement for a conviction.

What is laughable is that you refuse to acknowledge this fact.

Poor little foreign commie, once congress passed a criminal statute to enforce that provision of the 14th, that is the only remedy in the law. So yes it does require a trial and conviction based on that statute or a conviction on articles of impeachment from the house. He's already been acquitted on the articles of impeachment.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Oh really? So when President Trump gets back into office, he can charge you with an insurrection and without a conviction, toss your sorry ass into a jail without due process and leave you to rot for the rest of your sorry life?

He'd have to extradite the foreign commie bitch first.

.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

He'd have to extradite the foreign commie bitch first.

.

Be real simple, trace the IP address to the location, then at 4 am have a raid of 50 armed FBI agents with fully automatic weapons and plenty of floodlights.....

 

[OKTexas]

Be real simple, trace the IP address to the location, then at 4 am have a raid of 50 armed FBI agents with fully automatic weapons and plenty of floodlights.....

In Canada, the child dictator up there might object.

.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

In Canada, the child dictator up there might object.

.

What could the illegitimate son of Castro due, stop all maple syrup trade with the US? Stop pumping oil through the Keystone Pipeline?

 

[Concerned American]

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

Any legal penalty requires due process. Fourth amendment.

 

[Concerned American]

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.

There was no insurrection. No one has been charged with insurrection or convicted of insurrection. There has been no official recognition of an insurrection. You guys and your pretzel logic are comical.

 

[BackAgain]

I'm really not inclined to dissect the nuanced repercussions of an entirely fictional speculation about extreme scenarios.

Then your OP makes even less sense.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Any legal penalty requires due process. Fourth amendment.

For a criminal trial, perhaps. For this, no.