Is Donald Trump disqualified? Only Congress can decide!

[MagicMike]

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.

You sound triggered.
Isn't there a safe space you snowflakes can go whine to each other and feel better?
Out here in the real word we get tired of listening to it.

 

[Rigby5]

Hey Dummy. The election was overturned back on Nov. 3, 2020. They even admitted it in national print bragging about how, who, and when. All the people were doing on J6 was protesting the certification of that travesty before a thorough investigation could be vetted! As to Trump, he wasn't even there, Moron, had nothing to do with it unless you are so fucked in the head from watching your subversive news that you think Trump controls them all by wireless psychokinesis?!

Jackass.

Agreed.
I am anti-Trump, far left, and not sure how much voter fraud there was, but clearly there was too much.
Voter fraud has become easier and more rampant as time has gone on, and it was terrible even in 2000.
We need far more popular protests, not less.

 

[Rigby5]

Not a single court would agree that "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" applies to the violent rioters who overran the Capitol on Jan 6th. Not one.

Then we need pitchforks and torches until they to agree.
It is clear that voter fraud is vastly easier and greater than ever.
And it should not be tolerated regardless of whether there was so much fraud on both sides in 2020 so that it evened out.

The main problem with the Jan 6 protest is that it was TOO PEACEFUL, so then ignored and even incarcerated.
Blaming the protestors for the failing of the governments to run reasonable elections, is an insurrection.

 

[Clipper]

Just read the Declaration of Independence.
The rights of individuals are infinite, and you have it totally backwards to instead claim that actions are not legal unless there is legislation authorizing it.
The authority to protest their belief in election fraud is inherent.
It is what the 1st amendment specifically was intended to protect.

There was no massive fraud, despite the filthy lies that lunatic Trump continues to spread.

Trump is using you, but apparently you're too blind to see it. Either that or you don't care.

Trump's own people told him he lost, fair & square. But he ignored them. Why? Because he can as long as his cult supports him. And he knows it.

There's more to this which is the reason Trump is in panic mode over going to trial.

 

[Kruska]

Wrong.
The whole point of a republic is that representatives are supposed to do what the population wants,

That applies to any democracy - especially in theory in Fake democracies.

and the population has any and all means necessary to ensure their will is known by their representatives.

No, the population does NOT have a right to use "any" means.
Allowed are only "legal" means.

You know why?

Imagine some scumbag conning people into believing that e.g. an election was manipulated, upon which activists would then use illegal means - e.g. carrying weapons in no go areas - and lets just assume storming a federal government building, vandalizing it and getting people killed.

You obviously live the Wild-West dream - when law's and State law enforcement wasn't sufficient to keep the peace, and guys like you found their workdays entertainment in taring&feathering and lynching, and some Injuin killings on weekends.

BTW, lefty activists live the same dream - they just prefer to wear face-masks, training trousers and hoodies, instead of Cowboy or Military outfit.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Wrong.
It is a right to be on the ballot if you meet the same requirements of others on the ballots.
All possible candidates have to be treated equally with all requirements listed ahead of time, to ensure blind justice.
The fact rights have limits, does not mean the rights do not exist.

Your argument obviously fails on your own example, age.
The 2nd amendment clearly makes firearm ownership an individual right, even though it is denied to those under 18.
Reasonable restrictions on rights are perfectly legal as long as they are codified ahead of time, makes sense, and are applied uniformly.

Term limits are not a violation of rights because their intent and purpose is to ensure better support for those others who want to serve a term.
Moderating rights to better defend the rights of others, does not diminish a right, but enhances it.

Do you know what a "right" is? You can't have a "right as long as you meet certain requirements". Imagine a right to free speech but only if you meet the requirements that you're saying what the government wants you to say. It's a PRIVILEGE, not a right if there are such restrictions.

No, my argument doesn't fall at the 2A denied to those under 18. All rights have limits, and minors have bigger limits than adults because they're not deemed to be in total control of themselves.

Reasonable restrictions are fine. If you have the 2A, you can't have nukes, or SAMs or whatever. However the restrictions you're talking about with this supposed "right to be on the ballot" would be like most people not being actually able to get any kind of firearm at all.

Trust me, the right do not want to be arguing that there is a right to be on the ballot, because their ability to get guns would go down the crapper.

Term limits clearly are a violation. If you can't get on the ballot because of term limits, then your right has gone "Sorry sir, you had a gun for eight years, your time is up, fuck off"

 

[Care4all]

Insurrection is a statutory crime, which Trump nor anyone else has been charged with but that is what they are summarily penalizing him for. There is no need to belabor the point. The SCOTUS will decide it and the straw grasping will come to an end.

The constitution section 3 in the 14th, word for word makes absolutely no mention of having to be CONVICTED of insurrection, it purposely says ENGAGED in an insurrection....

A CONVICTION has no part in the constitutional amendment 14, section 3.

Try again!

 

[Care4all]

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.

I disagree. You leave out the FULL section, read the last line.

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, or under any State, who, having previously
taken an oath, as 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, to support the Constitution of the United
States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the
same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress
may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

This last line tells us Congress's involvement in Section 3,

They by 2/3s vote, can remove the candidates disability of being disqualified.

If Congress were the decision makers in the first place, then there would be no last line in sec. 3 giving them the power to disable the the removal decision.


From the ruling

¶89 The only mention of congressional power in Section Three is that “Congress
may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove” the disqualification of a
former officer who had “engaged in insurrection.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 3.
Section Three does not determine who decides whether the disqualification has
attached in the first place.

 

[Concerned American]

it purposely says ENGAGED in an insurrection...

And where is the proof? That is why they have a fourth, fifth and sixth amendment that deal with due process. I can say you engaged in murder--doesn't make it true. Due process. There was NO insurrection therefore, no one could have engaged in something that didn't happen. SMH. This isn't that hard to understand.

 

[Richard-H]

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.

A. 14 S. 5 does say that "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

However, it does not say that Congress has that power EXCLUSIVELY.

In fact, it would be absolutely silly to one hand expect Congress to pass legislation to bar someone from holding office again, but then:

"Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

If Congress had the EXCLUSIVE power to bar someone from office by a simple majority, they could reverse it by a simple majority. Expecting any possibility of them reversing it by a two-thirds majority in both houses after imposing it by a simple majority is nonsense.

Besides, A. 14 S. 3 has been enforced by the courts many times without Congressional action.

 

[Richard-H]

And where is the proof? That is why they have a fourth, fifth and sixth amendment that deal with due process. I can say you engaged in murder--doesn't make it true. Due process. There was NO insurrection therefore, no one could have engaged in something that didn't happen. SMH. This isn't that hard to understand.

Sure looked like an insurrection to millions of people!

But feel free to continue your word games!

Always good for a laugh!

 

[Concerned American]

Sure looked like an insurrection to millions of people!

The US has millions of ignorant people. You are a prime example.
Even AP has accepted that it was a RIOT.

Hundreds of convictions, but a major mystery is still unsolved 3 years after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot

Washington's federal courthouse remains flooded with trials, guilty plea hearings and sentencings stemming from what has become the largest criminal investigation in American history. “We cannot replace votes and deliberation with violence and intimidation,” Matthew Graves, the U.S. attorney...

www.yahoo.com

 

[Care4all]

And where is the proof? That is why they have a fourth, fifth and sixth amendment that deal with due process. I can say you engaged in murder--doesn't make it true. Due process. There was NO insurrection therefore, no one could have engaged in something that didn't happen. SMH. This isn't that hard to understand.

But due process in the constitution is for CRIMINAL OFFENSES the individual is charged with...

section 3 of the 14th is not a criminal offense.

 

[Care4all]

The US has millions of ignorant people. You are a prime example.
Even AP has accepted that it was a RIOT.

Hundreds of convictions, but a major mystery is still unsolved 3 years after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot

Washington's federal courthouse remains flooded with trials, guilty plea hearings and sentencings stemming from what has become the largest criminal investigation in American history. “We cannot replace votes and deliberation with violence and intimidation,” Matthew Graves, the U.S. attorney...

www.yahoo.com

An insurrection is more than a riot and less than a revolution...according to the Colorado supreme court.

The purpose of the riot, to stop the constitutional peaceful transfer of power and certification of the elector votes, was the MORE THAN A RIOT piece to make it qualify for insurrection.

 

[Richard-H]

The US has millions of ignorant people. You are a prime example.
Even AP has accepted that it was a RIOT.

Hundreds of convictions, but a major mystery is still unsolved 3 years after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot

Washington's federal courthouse remains flooded with trials, guilty plea hearings and sentencings stemming from what has become the largest criminal investigation in American history. “We cannot replace votes and deliberation with violence and intimidation,” Matthew Graves, the U.S. attorney...

www.yahoo.com

It was a riot with the purpose of overthrowing Democracy. That's a form of insurrection.

Saying that 'It Was a Riot' therefore it was not an insurrection is idiotic.

 

[MagicMike]

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

Wrong!
That's not constitutional.
Insurrectionists aren't even eligible candidates.

 

[Concerned American]

But due process in the constitution is for CRIMINAL OFFENSES the individual is charged with...

section 3 of the 14th is not a criminal offense.

Insurrection is a criminal offense. Before you can be penalized for insurrection the fourth amendment requires due process.

 

[Concerned American]

An insurrection is more than a riot and less than a revolution...according to the Colorado supreme court.

The purpose of the riot, to stop the constitutional peaceful transfer of power and certification of the elector votes, was the MORE THAN A RIOT piece to make it qualify for insurrection.

There has never been an insurrection recognized officially on J6. The democrats don't get to just declare that there was one. This line of thought is pure idiocy and anyone with any knowledge of the law knows it. BTW, according to the 14th--only congress is charged with enforcing--not the states. That includes CO.

 

[Concerned American]

It was a riot with the purpose of overthrowing Democracy. That's a form of insurrection.

Saying that 'It Was a Riot' therefore it was not an insurrection is idiotic.

The purpose of the riot was protest. There was absolutely no plan, real or imagined by anyone taking part to overthrow the government. Anyone who thinks it was is an idiot.

 

[Care4all]

Insurrection is a criminal offense. Before you can be penalized for insurrection the fourth amendment requires due process.

I disagree. The disqualification for insurrection is NOT a criminal offense or criminal penalty....

It is not a criminal offence to be disqualified for age, nor for not being natural born, etc, nor for not having enough petitioners to get you on the ballot as a candidate, nor for participating in an insurrection or giving aid to them.