Historians Brief: Twenty-five historians of the civil war and Reconstruction filed a US supreme court brief

[Procrustes Stretched]

This is a must read for anyone looking to make sense out of the history of the 14th Amendment, and how it is being asked to apply to Donald J. Trump.

Lots of people speaking about this are doing so with little to no understanding of the actual history. It's a fair and brilliant analysis, and of course like all analysis it comes down on a side. It has to. There are no two or many sides to this. Facts are facts.

Twenty-five historians of the civil war and Reconstruction filed a US supreme court brief in support of the attempt by Colorado to remove Donald Trump from the ballot under the 14th amendment, which bars insurrectionists from running for office.

“For historians,” the group wrote, “contemporary evidence from the decision-makers who sponsored, backed, and voted for the 14th amendment [ratified in 1868] is most probative. Analysis of this evidence demonstrates that decision-makers crafted section three to cover the president and to create an enduring check on insurrection, requiring no additional action from Congress.”

Lawyers for Trump argue that the presidency is not an “office” as described in the 14th amendment, that only congressional action can stop someone from running, and that Trump did not incite an insurrection.

US historians sign brief to support Coloradoâs removal of Trump from ballot

Twenty-five civil war and Reconstruction scholars support invoking 14th amendment to bar Trump from ballot over January 6

www.theguardian.com

The brief:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/298895/20240126151819211_23-719%20Brief.pdf

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

and of course, Lawrence has a superb take on it all.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

All democrats with a history of writing about racial justice.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

All democrats with a history of writing about racial justice.

try and refute a fact.

Facts Matter:
"During the congressional debates, Senator Reverdy Johnson of Maryland, a Democratic opponent of the 14 th Amendment, challenged sponsors as to why Section 3 omitted the President. Republican Senator Lot Morrill of Maine, an influential backer of congressional Reconstruction and the 14th Amendment, corrected the Senator. Morrill replied, “Let me call the Senator’s attention to the words ‘or hold any office civil or military under the United States.’” Senator Johnson admitted his error; no other Senator questioned whether Section 3 covered the President."

 

[EvilCat Breath]

try and refute a fact.

Facts Matter:
"During the congressional debates, Senator Reverdy Johnson of Maryland, a Democratic opponent of the 14 th Amendment, challenged sponsors as to why Section 3 omitted the President. Republican Senator Lot Morrill of Maine, an influential backer of congressional Reconstruction and the 14th Amendment, corrected the Senator. Morrill replied, “Let me call the Senator’s attention to the words ‘or hold any office civil or military under the United States.’” Senator Johnson admitted his error; no other Senator questioned whether Section 3 covered the President."

I may never be in the mood to believe a democrat.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I may never be in the mood to believe a democrat.

the quote isn't from a current Democrat. It's historians quoting congressional leaders debating the 14th amendment.

Facts Matter: no matter how inconvenient for you

"During the congressional debates, Senator Reverdy Johnson of Maryland, a Democratic opponent of the 14 th Amendment, challenged sponsors as to why Section 3 omitted the President. Republican Senator Lot Morrill of Maine, an influential backer of congressional Reconstruction and the 14th Amendment, corrected the Senator. Morrill replied, “Let me call the Senator’s attention to the words ‘or hold any office civil or military under the United States.’” Senator Johnson admitted his error; no other Senator questioned whether Section 3 covered the President."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/298895/20240126151819211_23-719%20Brief.pdf

3
"During the Andrew Johnson impeachment and trial, decision-makers who backed Section 3, explicitly
recognized the President as a civil or constitutional officer of the U.S. In presidential proclamations, Andrew Johnson routinely identified himself as the “chief executive officer of the United States.” In many instances, the framers of the original U.S. Constitution did not limit the designation of officers to appointed officials, but recognized the President as a national officer. Contemporary information provides direct evidence of the enduring reach of the 14th Amendment. Congress had previously enacted disqualifying statutes but now chose to
make disqualification permanent through a constitutional amendment. Republican Senator Peter Van Winkle of West Virginia said, “This is to go into our Constitution and to stand to govern future insurrection as well as the present…” To this end, the Amnesty Acts of 1872 and 1898 did not pardon future insurrectionists."

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"Other evidence demonstrates that implementation of Section 3 did not require additional acts of Congress. No former Confederate instantly disqualified from holding office under Section 3 was disqualified by an act of Congress. In seeking to quash his indictment for treason, Jefferson Davis argued that he was already punished through his automatic disqualification to hold public office under Section 3, which “executes itself … It needs no legislation on the part of Congress to give it effect.” The government agreed but opposed quashing his
indictment. Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon Chase, serving as a Circuit Court judge, also agreed. Later, in Griffin’s Case, Chase seemed to take a different position. However, his ruling that Section 3 disqualification required congressional action applied only to officials lawfully in
office before the states ratified the 14th Amendment."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/298895/20240126151819211_23-719%20Brief.pdf

 

[Winston]

The conservative majority of the supreme court and the historical legacy of the [Chief Justice John] Roberts court have reached a point of no return. The law, no matter the diversions and claptrap of Trump’s lawyers and the pundits, is crystal clear, on incontestable historical as well as originalist grounds … the conservatives face a choice between disqualifying Trump or shredding the foundation of their judicial methodology.”

 

[Moonglow]

Thanks for the dissertation of truth.

 

[Blackrook]

You have to prove someone is an insurrectionist, you can't just accuse him of it and have it stick.

 

[Winston]

You have to prove someone is an insurrectionist, you can't just accuse him of it and have it stick.

First, Attorney General Stanbery informed Congress that “inciting others to engage,” whether “by speech or by writing,” requires “disqualification.” The ReconstructionActs, 12 Op. Att’y Gen. 182, 205 (1867); The Reconstruction Acts, 12 Op. Att’y Gen. 141, 164 (1867). This reflected wellknown legal principles, applicable to treason among other crimes, that a person “is in law guilty of the forcible act” for “counselling” or “instigating others to perform” the violent act itself. In re Charge to Grand-Jury Treason, 30 F. Cas. 1047, 1048 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1851). The Civil War generation surely understood that the insurrectionists included instigators of the seizing of federal forts or the firing on Fort Sumter, even if they let others do thefighting.Second, even under de novo review and a clear-andconvincing evidence standard, Mr. Trump had the intent that the armed mob, at the very least, threaten physical force on January 6, 2021 in response to his speech on the Ellipse. Among other reasons this is clear and convincing is that Mr. Trump knew he had exhausted all his other options and yet still insisted he would remain President.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/299107/20240129171610494_23-719_Amici%20Brief.pdf

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You have to prove someone is an insurrectionist, you can't just accuse him of it and have it stick.

It has been proven. Facts speak for themselves. Aided and abetted a failed insurrection.

Not being charged does not make the facts go away. You are all confused. As usual, your type speaks like a Failed Liabity lawyer, BAckAgain with deflections and deceptions. You comment on a piece without reading and comprehending it, because you have prepackaged answers force fed to you that you regurgitate like some Pavlovian pup.

 

[Robert W]

the quote isn't from a current Democrat. It's historians quoting congressional leaders debating the 14th amendment.

Facts Matter: no matter how inconvenient for you

"During the congressional debates, Senator Reverdy Johnson of Maryland, a Democratic opponent of the 14 th Amendment, challenged sponsors as to why Section 3 omitted the President. Republican Senator Lot Morrill of Maine, an influential backer of congressional Reconstruction and the 14th Amendment, corrected the Senator. Morrill replied, “Let me call the Senator’s attention to the words ‘or hold any office civil or military under the United States.’” Senator Johnson admitted his error; no other Senator questioned whether Section 3 covered the President."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/298895/20240126151819211_23-719%20Brief.pdf

3
"During the Andrew Johnson impeachment and trial, decision-makers who backed Section 3, explicitly
recognized the President as a civil or constitutional officer of the U.S. In presidential proclamations, Andrew Johnson routinely identified himself as the “chief executive officer of the United States.” In many instances, the framers of the original U.S. Constitution did not limit the designation of officers to appointed officials, but recognized the President as a national officer. Contemporary information provides direct evidence of the enduring reach of the 14th Amendment. Congress had previously enacted disqualifying statutes but now chose to
make disqualification permanent through a constitutional amendment. Republican Senator Peter Van Winkle of West Virginia said, “This is to go into our Constitution and to stand to govern future insurrection as well as the present…” To this end, the Amnesty Acts of 1872 and 1898 did not pardon future insurrectionists."

Trump did not back nor promote any insurrection. All he did is what many Democrats did prior to him being in office and that was to object to the election results.
This country will fall to the Soviets if this is allowed to bar Trump.

 

[Robert W]

It has been proven. Facts speak for themselves. Aided and abetted a failed insurrection.

Not being charged does not make the facts go away. You are all confused. As usual, your type speaks like a Failed Liabity lawyer, BAckAgain with deflections and deceptions. You comment on a piece without reading and comprehending it, because you have prepackaged answers force fed to you that you regurgitate like some Pavlovian pup.

Democrats own lawyers do not agree with you or you would know the names of convicts convicted of insurrection.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Trump did not back nor promote any insurrection. All he did is what many Democrats did prior to him being in office and that was to object to the election results.
This country will fall to the Soviets if this is allowed to bar Trump.

Trump's advisors testified under oath about his actions and inactions during the riots/insurrection. We now know of plans made before Jan 6 to interfere with the Congressional certification. There is a ton of evidence that supports the charge that Trump is an insurrectionist or at the least and a person who aided and abetted the failed insurrection. It's all in legal depositions and indictments. Ignore what you will. Doesn't make it go away.

The Soviets? Wake the fuck up. It's 2024

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Democrats own lawyers do not agree with you or you would know the names of convicts convicted of insurrection.

No one has been charge with insurrection for Jan 6 - yet. Doesn't mean there was no attempted insurrection. Deflection is not your best friend or a good defense.

again...

Trump's advisors testified under oath about his actions and inactions during the riots/insurrection. We now know of plans made before Jan 6 to interfere with the Congressional certification. There is a ton of evidence that supports the charge that Trump is an insurrectionist or at the least and a person who aided and abetted the failed insurrection. It's all in legal depositions and indictments. Ignore what you will. Doesn't make it go away.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

In America, no one is above the law. Not even an ex-President.

 

[Robert W]

No one has been charge with insurrection for Jan 6 - yet. Doesn't mean there was no attempted insurrection. Deflection is not your best friend or a good defense.

again...

Trump's advisors testified under oath about his actions and inactions during the riots/insurrection. We now know of plans made before Jan 6 to interfere with the Congressional certification. There is a ton of evidence that supports the charge that Trump is an insurrectionist or at the least and a person who aided and abetted the failed insurrection. It's all in legal depositions and indictments. Ignore what you will. Doesn't make it go away.

Posters like you are the main reason all laws are written down so we can all see them and quote from them. I have seen Democrats dream up all shitty excuses why Trump belongs in prison. And they will for a hundred more years.

What is worse is the real criminal Biden and his family will be praised by Democrats though they actually did break major laws.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Posters like you are the main reason all laws are written down so we can all see them and quote from them. I have seen Democrats dream up all shitty excuses why Trump belongs in prison. And they will for a hundred more years.

What is worse is the real criminal Biden and his family will be praised by Democrats though they actually did break major laws.

Your inane rants about the Biden family are hilariously stupid.

Democrats did not indict Trump. The justice system has: Grand juries comprised of American citizens, Judges and courts reviewed subpoenas, Americans of all stripes involved. Most evidence comes from sworn testimonies of Republicans, people in Trump's orbit...

 

[Robert W]

Your inane rants about the Biden family are hilariously stupid.

Democrats did not indict Trump. The justice system has: Grand juries comprised of American citizens, Judges and courts reviewed subpoenas, Americans of all stripes involved. Most evidence comes from sworn testimonies of Republicans, people in Trump's orbit...

As I figured you to be, totally smitten by the Biden crime family and unwilling to assess his crimes.
As to your claims of republicans testifying against trump, when was the trial you mention happening?