Is Donald Trump disqualified? Only Congress can decide!

[Missourian]

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.

According to the Boston Globe...the wargame specified that Joe Biden, through his campaign "encouraged the Western States to secede"... I'll let you read the pertinent passage from the article yourself...

"The scenario that produced the most contentious dynamics, however, was the one in which Trump won the Electoral College — and thus, the election — but Biden won the popular vote by 5 percentage points. Biden’s team retracted his Election Night concession, fueled by Democrats angry at losing yet another election despite capturing the popular vote, as happened in 2000 and 2016. In the mock election, Trump sought to divide Democrats — at one point giving an interview to The Intercept, a left-leaning news outlet, saying Senator Bernie Sanders would have won if Democrats had nominated him. Meanwhile, Biden’s team sought to encourage large Western states to secede unless pro-Democracy reforms were made. "

A bipartisan group secretly gathered to game out a contested Trump-Biden election. It wasnât pretty - The Boston Globe

The group explored this scenario: What if President Trump refuses to concede a loss, as he publicly hinted recently he might do? How far could he go to preserve his power?

www.bostonglobe.com

Would THAT constitute insurrection?

 

[Stormy Daniels]

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

IF the Supreme Court touches the ballot cases, I would bet that they will narrowly rule on the procedural grounds that the states don't have authority to scrutinize a person's constitutional qualifications for President. I think it's more likely that they will simply decline to be involved, treating it as a strictly state issue.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

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

That doesn't matter. The law operates on procedures, not convenience.

 

[Lastamender]

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.

What whole truth moron?

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

If you want to use the 14th Amendment, Biden is already disqualified.

The safest place he can be is on a beach away from the White House.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

According to the Boston Globe...the wargame specified that Joe Biden, through his campaign "encouraged the Western States to secede"... I'll let you read the pertinent passage from the article yourself...

"The scenario that produced the most contentious dynamics, however, was the one in which Trump won the Electoral College — and thus, the election — but Biden won the popular vote by 5 percentage points. Biden’s team retracted his Election Night concession, fueled by Democrats angry at losing yet another election despite capturing the popular vote, as happened in 2000 and 2016. In the mock election, Trump sought to divide Democrats — at one point giving an interview to The Intercept, a left-leaning news outlet, saying Senator Bernie Sanders would have won if Democrats had nominated him. Meanwhile, Biden’s team sought to encourage large Western states to secede unless pro-Democracy reforms were made. "

A bipartisan group secretly gathered to game out a contested Trump-Biden election. It wasnât pretty - The Boston Globe

The group explored this scenario: What if President Trump refuses to concede a loss, as he publicly hinted recently he might do? How far could he go to preserve his power?

www.bostonglobe.com

Would THAT constitute insurrection?

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

 

[Clipper]

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

The only one playing "games" is Trump & his enablers who are hell bent on delaying these trials until 2025.

Including that Florida hack, Judge Cannon.

This is a Constitutional question to be decided more then likely by the SCOTUS. Referring to a decision of this magnitude as "games" is bullshit. The officials who brought these cases knew full well that ultimately these decisions one way or the other would ultimately up in front of the SCOTUS. So much for your referring to this as a "game".

 

[Missourian]

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

I'd contend it is tremendously relevant.

What actions exactly rise to the level of insurrection?

 

[MAGA Macho Man]

Bullshit. Trump is facing 91 felonies with mountains of evidence against him,

All fabricated bogus evidence.

 

[JGalt]

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.

Nice TDS-fueled rant there, bro.

Please get back on your meds as soon a possible.

 

[MagicMike]

Irrelevant; there was no insurrection by Trump.

WRONG!

 

[Clipper]

What whole truth moron?

I already told you, nitwit. You're scared shitless what Smith has on Trump still to be revealed at a trial. Which will bury him.

Guess who else knows? Trump. Which is why HE's scared shitless of a trial.

My guess is Trump will plea bargain. Guess why, idiot?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Well, seeing how things are getting incorporated these days....

 

[Clipper]

Nice TDS-fueled rant there, bro.

Please get back on your meds as soon a possible.

Let's see you run your mouth when Trump plea bargains when this gets closer to an actual trial.

Guess why, fool?

 

[Stormy Daniels]

I'd contend it is tremendously relevant.

What actions exactly rise to the level of insurrection?

I'm not sure what exactly constitutes a "war game" in the first place. But it sounds to me like a bunch of politicians were basically sitting around and playing Dungeons and Dragons DC Universe Edition, trying to dream up as laughably extreme a sequence of events as possible. I just don't see how it translates into any reasonable expectation to infer that there is some kind of plan to actually do something nefarious.

But if I'm wrong and some November the Democratic party starts talking about state secession like they did almost two centuries ago, I'll be right here condemning them.

 

[Lesh]

Section 5 states that Congress can make laws to enforce the 14th.

It doesn’t say that states can’t act on their own

 

[toobfreak]

Bullshit. Trump is facing 91 felonies with mountains of evidence

You left out the words 'manufactured bullshit' mountains of useless crap that will fall apart under the scrutiny of fair judicial review.

If Trump is so guilty, then why are you trying him in the most hostile, anti-Trump locations with juries filled only with anti-Trumpers?

Afraid you can't get a conviction in a fair setting???

 

[JGalt]

Let's see you run your mouth when Trump plea bargains when this gets closer to an actual trial.

Guess why, fool?

It'll be more fun to see you spazzing out and pissing your panties after all your bullshit fails and Trump is inaugurated on January 20, 205.

 

[MagicMike]

All fabricated bogus evidence.

All?
Certainly not!
How about specifics?
What specific pieces of evidence of these 91 felonies is "fabricated" and/or "bogus?"
You can't even answer that....can you?
You don't really know WTF you're talking about do you?

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Section 5 states that Congress can make laws to enforce the 14th.

It doesn’t say that states can’t act on their own

And if you read my post in its entirety, you'd see I addressed that.

States have the power to choose electors by any means they wish, and they have the power to choose their own ballot access rules. But they don't have any power to scrutinize a person's eligibility under the federal law.

So for example, Maine would be within its rights to enact a law that says anyone who has committed insurrection against the United States is prohibited from appearing on a ballot in the state for any elected office. And if they do that, then what constitutes "insurrection" for purposes of their own state's ballot access would be a question of state law. But Maine does not have any such law in existence.

What Maine is actually doing is casting its own judgment on a matter of federal law. And the particular matter (whether an individual is constitutionally qualified to be President) is one that the constitution puts in the hands of the joint session of Congress to determine. So if the question reaches SCOTUS, they will require Maine to certify whether there is a state law that prohibits Donald from having ballot access (that answer to which will be in the negative), and will then find that they themselves have no basis to determine the whether Donald is qualified, and send the case back to Maine with instructions to treat Donald like every other candidate.