Is Donald Trump disqualified? Only Congress can decide!

[Lesh]

The Court agrees unanimously with me.

It will agree that Trump has no immunity as well.

But it will drag it’s feet getting there and may even try to send the matter back to a lower court on “particulars”

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

But it will drag it’s feet getting there and may even try to send the matter back to a lower court on “particulars”

No, they will be done late May or early June. It will not be sent back for further review.

The Court has decided that only the American voter in whole can decide this matter.

Trump, if he wins, can wipe the Board Clean.

Trump, if he loses, dies in federal remandment.

It's the cleanest way.

 

[Rawley]

But it will drag it’s feet getting there and may even try to send the matter back to a lower court on “particulars”

You need to direct your whining at Garland that sat one this bullshit for 2 1/2 years until after Trump announced.

 

[Rawley]

The Court agrees unanimously with me.

It will agree that Trump has no immunity as well.

SO you're comfortable letting Laken Reilly's parents sue Biden for damages. REally?

 

[hadit]

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.

What! Wait, this is impossible! We've been seeing for quite a while now that random internet keyboard jockeys determine whether a candidate is eligible to be on the ballot. What's this about Congress having anything to say about it?

 

[hadit]

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.

Like what we saw in Portland where a group of malcontents literally fenced off an area and declared themselves free of the US government. Thankfully, it ended without bloodshed when they realized that no one owed them cell phone recharging or McDonalds.

 

[Lesh]

You need to direct your whining at Garland that sat one this bullshit for 2 1/2 years until after Trump announced.

Point taken. Garland is certainly not the aggressive Trump Hunter you guys try to claim

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

SO you're comfortable letting Laken Reilly's parents sue Biden for damages. REally?

Of course they can sue and go nowhere.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Rawley, this will be decided by the voters.

If Mr. Trump wins, he is home free.

If he loses, he will die in federal remandment.

Sounds fair to me.

Let the voters decide!

 

[Rawley]

Point taken. Garland is certainly not the aggressive Trump Hunter you guys try to claim

Because it's the WH calling all the shots, clearly.

 

[Rawley]

Rawley, this will be decided by the voters.

If Mr. Trump wins, he is home free.

If he loses, he will die in federal remandment.

Sounds fair to me.

Let the voters decide!

Because of the horribly undemocratic precedent your cult is setting

 

[Edgetho]

Point taken. Garland is certainly not the aggressive Trump Hunter you guys try to claim

Yes, he is. Merrick Garland is the scummiest scumbag motherfucker in the US Government. He is the Heinrich Mueller of the dimocrap scum party.

He belongs in prison. Or worse. Under it would be my choice

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Yes, he is. Merrick Garland is the scummiest scumbag motherfucker in the US Government. He is the Heinrich Mueller of the dimocrap scum party.

He belongs in prison. Or worse. Under it would be my choice

You have no basis for any such statements.

Because of the horribly undemocratic precedent your cult is setting

You guys are not democratic, and Mr. Trump is not above the law.

 

[WEATHER53]

They can’t decide either. Only convictions keep you off. Assertions that Orange Man Bad are insufficient

 

[Concerned American]

You guys are not democratic, and Mr. Trump is not above the law.

 

[WEATHER53]

You guys are not democratic, and Mr. Trump is not above the law.

What guilt has he been convicted of ?
Assertions that Orange Man Bad just failed Again today.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

You are playing the dirge for the MAGAitry.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The ruling clears the way for three or four convictions before election.

 

[Concerned American]

You are playing the dirge for the MAGAitry.

Seems crow is on the menu today for you and your ilk. Bon Apetit, maybe you should try acting like an American.

 

[Rawley]

You have no basis for any such statements.

You guys are not democratic, and Mr. Trump is not above the law.

Your cult is the one trying to take it's political opponents off of ballots, and actually jail them