Is Donald Trump disqualified? Only Congress can decide!

[Stormy Daniels]

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:

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

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.

If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President-elect shall have died, the Vice President-elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President-elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President-elect nor a Vice President-elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

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.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

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.

Who was convicted of an insurrection again? A friend wants to know....

 

[Concerned American]

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.

Moot.

 

[JGalt]

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.

Nope. Congress is the legislative branch, and only has powers to make laws. The Supreme Court on the other hand, is the highest court in the land, and plays an essential role in ensuring that each branch of government recognizes the limits of its own power.

About the Supreme Court

 

[MinTrut]

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.

Irrelevant; there was no insurrection by Trump.

Democrats on the other hand have been treasonously raping, burning and looting the country for the last 8 years.

 

[Lastamender]

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.

Nice, but Trump is not an insurrectionist.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Nope. Congress is the legislative branch, and only has powers to make laws. The Supreme Court on the other hand, is the highest court in the land, and plays an essential role in ensuring that each branch of government recognizes the limits of its own power.

About the Supreme Court

You didn't even bother to read what I said.

 

[toobfreak]

Is Donald Trump disqualified? Only Congress can decide!​

They already did. Democrats impeached him in early 2021 on grounds of J6 insurrection and he was acquitted. Since then, they found that at that, the entire J6 committee was bogus, using only handpicked anti-Trumpers who lied, denied Trump representation, cross examination and due process of law, withheld evidence to exonerate Trump and even tampered with the evidence and they still failed.

Trump is innocent, falsely accused, and there is absolutely no legal basis on which to not allow him on the ballot so that VOTERS can decide.

 

[DGS49]

It doesn't take the Supreme Court to observe that this provision was specifically intended to address Confederate officials and officers - all of whom are dead.

If this case ever gets there - not a slam dunk - it will be 9-0.

 

[JGalt]

You didn't even bother to read what I said.

Yes I did, and you wrote "insurrectionists like Donald Trump".

So when was Donald Trump charged, tried, and convicted of "insurrection" in a court of law?

Has anyone who participated in the January 6 protest been charged with "insurrection"?

 

[Esdraelon]

Moot.

Exactly, but now is as good a time as ever for SCOTUS to rule and clear things up.

 

[Thinker101]

You didn't even bother to read what I said.

All you loons have the same thoughts, so do we really need to read it too?

 

[Missourian]

...and bar insurrectionists like Donald Trump from even being a candidate for public office.

^^^ Pretty good post up to this point.

Since there was no insurrection...Trump cannot be barred.

But...I do have a question for you.

This was one wargame scenario that the DEMOCRATS played out prior to the 2020 election...

"But conveniently, a group of former top government officials called the Transition Integrity Project actually gamed four possible scenarios, including one that doesn’t look that different from 2016: a big popular win for Mr. Biden, and a narrow electoral defeat, presumably reached after weeks of counting the votes in Pennsylvania. For their war game, they cast John Podesta, who was Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, in the role of Mr. Biden. They expected him, when the votes came in, to concede, just as Mrs. Clinton had.

But Mr. Podesta, playing Mr. Biden, shocked the organizers by saying he felt his party wouldn’t let him concede. Alleging voter suppression, he persuaded the governors of Wisconsin and Michigan to send pro-Biden electors to the Electoral College.

In that scenario, California, Oregon, and Washington then threatened to secede from the United States if Mr. Trump took office as planned. The House named Mr. Biden president; the Senate and White House stuck with Mr. Trump. At that point in the scenario, the nation stopped looking to the media for cues, and waited to see what the military would do."

Democrats' 'War Game' for Election Includes West Coast Secession, Possible Civil War

Democrats are contemplating the secession of the West Coast and potential civil war as they play "war games" for a closely contested election.

www.breitbart.com

Wow... Would you look at that.

Alternate slates of electors!

No way.

Well... that is obviously not insurrection.

But...the Western States threatening succession to interfere with an election WOULD be insurrection... would it not?

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Yes I did, and you wrote "insurrectionists like Donald Trump".

So when was Donald Trump charged, tried, and convicted of "insurrection" in a court of law?

Has anyone who participated in the January 6 protest been charged with "insurrection"?

By your reasoning, someone has to be charged and convicted of being less than 35 in order to prevent them from taking office at 32 years old.

No, it's not necessary to be charged or convicted of "insurrection". The constitution does not say the disqualification only applies after a conviction. It applies, period. But only Congress can do anything about it, either by legislative enforcement (which they have failed to do) or during the proceedings of the joint session counting the Electoral College ballots. The Maine and Colorado stuff is fool's game.

 

[JGalt]

All you loons have the same thoughts, so do we really need to read it too?

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.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

But...the Western States threatening succession to interfere with an election WOULD be insurrection... would it not?

Threatening to secede? No, that would not rise to the level of insurrection or rebellion, in my opinion. That would just be politics, ugly as it might be. Actual secession, on the other hand, would be insurrection against the federal government.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

The legal contortions those guys and girls are going through to disqualify Trump are hilarious.

Actually, I'm setting out the very clear legal reasons why Democrats should knock it off with their ballot games.

 

[Clipper]

They already did. Democrats impeached him in early 2021 on grounds of J6 insurrection and he was acquitted. Since then, they found that at that, the entire J6 committee was bogus, using only handpicked anti-Trumpers who lied, denied Trump representation, cross examination and due process of law, withheld evidence to exonerate Trump and even tampered with the evidence and they still failed.

Trump is innocent, falsely accused, and there is absolutely no legal basis on which to not allow him on the ballot so that VOTERS can decide.

Bullshit. Trump is facing 91 felonies with mountains of evidence against him, some still not revealed by the SC. The way to deal with Trump & the only way to deal with him is the court system, just like anyone else facing what he is. Trump is a private citizen, period. And he DESERVES to be put on trial to either clear his name or convict him.

A trial. Which scares the beejesuse out the MAGA cult because you're scared shitless that the whole truth will be revealed about what he did & he'll be found guilty.

Put Trump on trial now. And whether he's convicted or isn't then the voter's can decide whether he's worthy of holding the office of POTUS.

Trump is so goddamm innocent he's desperate to be reelected so he can pardon himself (which is an admission of guilt) or he can appoint an AG who will let him off the hook.

 

[JGalt]

By your reasoning, someone has to be charged and convicted of being less than 35 in order to prevent them from taking office at 32 years old.

No, it's not necessary to be charged or convicted of "insurrection". The constitution does not say the disqualification only applies after a conviction. It applies, period. But only Congress can do anything about it, either by legislative enforcement (which they have failed to do) or during the proceedings of the joint session counting the Electoral College ballots. The Maine and Colorado stuff is fool's game.

Proving that someone is too young to have been elected President is easy through birth records.

Proving that Donald Trump actually committed an "insurrection" is going to be impossible.

 

[BackAgain]

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.

Nope. Congress already passed a criminal statute about insurrection. So, that part is done.

What would be required — now — to invoke the 14th to disqualify Trump would be a criminal prosecution under that criminal statute leading to a conviction of our former President.

This is silliness. Ain’t gonna happen.