The Constitution bars Trump from holding public office ever again

IM2

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Mar 11, 2015
77,073
34,272
2,330
The Constitution bars Trump from holding public office ever again

While some on the right portray accountability for the Jan. 6 Capitol riot as just another partisan dispute,]two prominent conservative legal scholars have made the case that the Constitution disqualifies former President Trump from public office.

Last week, law professors William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas — both members of the conservative Federalist Society — argued in a law review article that Trump is already constitutionally forbidden from serving in public office because of Section Three of the 14th Amendment.


Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal consequences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.

First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.


Now if you want to play word games, 1-6 was most certainly a rebellion. And trump was the organizer. Therefore, he is ineligible to run for president. And these ain't no liberal woke activist judges saying this.

THEY ARE CONSERVATIVES AND THEY ARE SAYING THAT TRUMP IS CONSTITUTIONALLY INELIGIBLE FOR OFFICE.

checkmate-in-chess.jpg


Checkmate
 
Last edited:
The Cognitively Retarded and not just Rigid . They will become even more unhinged as events unfold . Some will keel over on the streets ,foaming at the mouth, and will have to be black bagged and burnt . Impure mutants. .
 
Been threads on this for 2 years or more, no one has stopped him from campaigning yet.

and he'll likely still be campaigning after Super Tuesday.
He can campaign, he will campaign.
The issue is, every State allowing him to be on the ballot based on the 14th ammendment. That ammendment is there for a reason, historical reason. Look it up.
 
He can campaign, he will campaign.
The issue is, every State allowing him to be on the ballot based on the 14th ammendment. That ammendment is there for a reason, historical reason. Look it up.
Problem is, he was only behind the protest. not the so-called insurrection claimed by former Speaker Pelosi and her stooges.

and Pelosi isn't in charge anymore.
 
The Constitution bars Trump from holding public office ever again

While some on the right portray accountability for the Jan. 6 Capitol riot as just another partisan dispute,]two prominent conservative legal scholars have made the case that the Constitution disqualifies former President Trump from public office.

Last week, law professors William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas — both members of the conservative Federalist Society — argued in a law review article that Trump is already constitutionally forbidden from serving in public office because of Section Three of the 14th Amendment.


Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal consequences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.

First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.


Now if you want to play word games, 1-6 was most certainly a rebellion. And trump was the organizer. Therefore, he is ineligible to run for president. And these ain't no liberal woke activist judges saying this.

THEY ARE CONSERVATIVES AND THEY ARE SAYING THAT TRUMP IS CONSTITUTIONALLY INELIGIBLE FOR OFFICE.

checkmate-in-chess.jpg


Checkmate
Tl;dr

Because Trump is a racist, right?
 
Been threads on this for 2 years or more, no one has stopped him from campaigning yet.

and he'll likely still be campaigning after Super Tuesday.

Very likely... but that doesn't mean he's going to have to spend a LOT of money fighting this issue in 50 courts across the country. some of them he might lose and be eliminated from the ballot altogether.
 
Problem is, he was only behind the protest. not the so-called insurrection claimed by former Speaker Pelosi and her stooges.

and Pelosi isn't in charge anymore.
Once you know what you are talking about, let us know.

There are no claims.

There are 1000 plus White House staffers, lawyers, aides, secret agents, etc, including Ivanka Trump, who have already given their depositions about what happened on that day.

And their depositions plus texts, videos, photos, etc is what has led to the indictments voted by American citizens in the Grand Juries.

Make it about Pelosi all you like.
 
I'll just boil this down to the key point.

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal consequences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.

A whole lot of problems with this. Let's look at the key section of the 14th Amendment that is in play.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Okay, so the first problem is, this was specifically meant to apply to people who served in the Confederate military or Congress after the Civil War, and was never actually enforced. In 1872, President Grant signed the Amnesty Act, which exempted all but the most senior Confederate Officials from serving.

The second problem with this is if you can use it to disqualify Trump for supporting the January 6 insurrection, then you can use it to exclude any Democrat who supported the BLM riots. Biden is probably in the clear, since he denounced the violence early on, but Kamala Harris raised money to get bail for rioters who went out and rioted again. She might be in a tad of trouble. (Of course, Biden should dump Harris anyway, because she's unpopular).

I think that this only really works if Trump is convicted of the charges in DC. I don't even think losing the Georgia case would disqualify him.

The case law on this is dicey. The one time they tried to use this to exclude a non-confederate from the ballot was in 1919, when they tried to exclude German-American Socialist Congressman Victor Berger from taking his seat because he opposed US entry into WWI, and was convicted (wrongly) under the Espionage Act. His conviction was overturned in 1921 and he went on to serve three more terms in Congress. .


Still, no problem filing a complaint in every state in the union to keep Trump off the ballot. They will force Trump to piss away a lot of money fighting this and once again emphasize the nasty shit he actually did.
 
Once you know what you are talking about, let us know.

There are no claims.

There are 1000 plus White House staffers, lawyers, aides, secret agents, etc, including Ivanka Trump, who have already given their depositions about what happened on that day.

And their depositions plus texts, videos, photos, etc is what has led to the indictments voted by American citizens in the Grand Juries.

Make it about Pelosi all you like.
Laugh all you like, Auld.

The lack of caring about the Constitution and the rule of law, and what the Republican voters want, is losing Republican candidates their elections.

Please, keep it up. :)
 

Forum List

Back
Top