Is Donald Trump disqualified? Only Congress can decide!

[Lesh]

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. But 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.

They are not making Federal law or enforcing federal law.

That are controlling their own elective process.

Your long winded opinion was just that

Opinion

 

[MagicMike]

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?

Because these are the jurisdictions where the crimes were committed dummy.
Where would you prefer the trials occur?
Rural Texas?
Mississippi?

 

[progressive hunter]

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

and no one else should read it,,

 

[Lastamender]

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?

You are the one who is scared. You and the corrupt government.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Nonsense.
The self acknowledged insurrectionist of the Civil War killed half a million people, and yet still Confederates WERE elected to positions in the federal government for half a century after the Civil War.

The Trump protestors believed they were protesting against voter fraud, which not only is NOT at all insurrection, but a clear intent of fixing existing harm to the country.
It is voter fraud that would be closer to "insurrection".

 

[Stormy Daniels]

They are not making Federal law or enforcing federal law.

That are controlling their own elective process.

Well that's incorrect, but you're missing the point. A state's ballot access rules do not create any implication on a person's qualifications under the federal constitution. At best, Maine and Colorado can decide whether Donald is qualified to appear on their states' ballots. But they have no say in whether he's qualified to another term in the White House.

I don't want to see that man-child anywhere near the Oval Office again. But this the law.

 

[Lesh]

Well that's incorrect, but you're missing the point. A state's ballot access rules do not create any implication on a person's qualifications under the federal constitution. At best, Maine and Colorado can decide whether Donald is qualified to appear on their states' ballots. But they have no say in whether he's qualified to another term in the White House.

I don't want to see that man-child anywhere near the Oval Office again. But this the law.

That makes no sense. If they can bar him from the ballot they are banning him from being elected (via electors ) from their state

Whatever. The Court will either rule on it or let it stand

 

[MagicMike]

but a clear intent of fixing existing harm to the country

Illegally

It is voter fraud that would be closer to "insurrection"

Yet there was no voter fraud.
They were all obvuously decieved and incited by their orange cat turd king, Donald Trump.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Wrong.
The law is clear, and there is nothing remotely legal about any of the charges against Trump.
The laws on classified docs are presidential EOs that not only exempt all presidents, but allow presidents to give anyone, including themselves, permanent copies of any classified docs they want.
It is illegal to claim an unofficial valuation could possibly be fraud, since banks are required by law to do their own appraisals.
It is perfectly legal for a president to write off hush money on taxes.
Jean Carroll volunteered to get naked and model lingerie.

 

[Kruska]

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:

True - however in a "real" democracy, the population aka the voters decide as to whom they find legible or not.

The other (totally separate issue) is the implementation of existing laws.
As such if a SC of a State, or the USSC find's something to be against the law - then so be it.

 

[candycorn]

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 we 50 different elections (and DC) for POTUS. Congress, it seems, wouldn’t have any input.

 

[Rigby5]

Illegally

Yet there was no voter fraud.
They were all obvuously decieved and incited by their orange cat turd king, Donald Trump.

Wrong.
A protest at the capital is not possible to fix anything or be an illegal insurrection.
The ONLY possible point of a capital protest is to pressure congress into the needed long term investigation into voter fraud.

It is obviously a lie to claim, "there was no voter fraud".
There not only is always some voter fraud, but there were over half a million fraudulent votes already caught.
And we also all saw videos of people dumping bag after bag of ballots into drop boxes.
So likely those could all have been voter fraud, since drop boxes can't do ID checks.

And it should be obvious to anyone with even half a brain that computers should never be used for voting machines.

 

[Kruska]

Well we 50 different elections (and DC) for POTUS. Congress, it seems, wouldn’t have any input.

The USSC has the right to overrule State laws and rulings - as in the case of Trump, so?

 

[MAGA Macho Man]

Yet there was no voter fraud.

Yes there was. Why did the swing states stop counting the votes simultaneously?

 

[Rigby5]

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.

The 14th amendment was intended to prevent state abuse of the rights of individuals.
So then it forces the US to act in the defense of individual rights.
The SCOTUS does not then have the option of leaving it up to the states.
The SCOTUS is required by the 14th amendment, to prevent the states from infringing on the rights not only of candidates like Trump, but all voters who want to vote for him as well.

 

[Kruska]

Wrong.
A protest at the capital is not possible to fix anything or be an illegal insurrection.
The ONLY possible point of a capital protest is to pressure congress into the needed long term investigation into voter fraud.

It is obviously a lie to claim, "there was no voter fraud".
There not only is always some voter fraud, but there were over half a million fraudulent votes already caught.
And we also all saw videos of people dumping bag after bag of ballots into drop boxes.
So likely those could all have been voter fraud, since drop boxes can't do ID checks.

And it should be obvious to anyone with even half a brain that computers should never be used for voting machines.

Ever heard of "legal means"? anything else is illegal, and in the case of Jan.6th - it was illegal, and an insurrection attempt.

 

[Rigby5]

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".

Wrong.
This is a "game" because it is ridiculously worthless.
The SCOTUS is never going to allow states to void an ex-president from the ballot.
All this is trying to do is take up as much time and money from Trump's campaign as possible, and that clearly is illegal.

 

[MagicMike]

Yes there was. Why did the swing states stop counting the votes simultaneously?

They didn't.

 

[Rigby5]

Ever heard of "legal means"? anything else is illegal, and in the case of Jan.6th - it was illegal, and an insurrection attempt.

Wrong.
It is allowing massive voter fraud that is illegal.
The law allows any and all means possible for citizens to try to end an illegal practice by government.
Like the protest over Vietnam, etc.
The riots were perfectly legal because the acts the government was doing were illegal.

We all know there has always been voter fraud, like the hanging chads, butterfly ballots, etc., from 2000.
The only thing that is changed is that now by using computers voting machines, it is harder to catch the voter fraud.

 

[MagicMike]

Wrong.
A protest at the capital is not possible to fix anything or be an illegal insurrection.
The ONLY possible point of a capital protest is to pressure congress into the needed long term investigation into voter fraud.

It is obviously a lie to claim, "there was no voter fraud".
There not only is always some voter fraud, but there were over half a million fraudulent votes already caught.
And we also all saw videos of people dumping bag after bag of ballots into drop boxes.
So likely those could all have been voter fraud, since drop boxes can't do ID checks.

And it should be obvious to anyone with even half a brain that computers should never be used for voting machines.

Fake news.