Trump, the 14th and barring from office

[Dadoalex]

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office​

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.

First, the Ballots

I don't see anything in the text that calls for, permits, or forbids removing a person's name from the ballots. In the primaries this is solely a State decision and in the General this still falls to the states although Federal jurisdiction may be inferred via the VRA.

I don't see that SCOTUS has any jurisdiction in the primary prospect and its jurisdiction in the General is "iffy."

Certification at the State

This is the first place I see that Trump could be excluded. State legislatures, under the 14th, could refuse to certify a Trump win and decide to submit a different slate of electors or no electors at all.

The Congress

One of three places Trump could be declared an insurrectionist. Courts, and State Legislatures being the others. My reading says that a majority of each House, any State legislature, or any Federal court has the authority to declare Trump an insurrectionist at which time Trump can only enter any Federal office, elected or not, upon a 2/3 vote of each house of Congress.

Not sure how it would work in the Congress. Would each House hold a separate vote as to whether Trump is an insurrectionist? Would the VP declare Trump ineligible and the collective Congress vote?

My thinking favors the latter as the VP is "in charge" during the certification process.

My own thinking here is that Trump is ineligible to hold any Federal office with the actual events and the numbers of people convicted for their actions under Trump's direction/banner.

I'd like to discuss how such a ban would be implemented.

 

[Dr.Destructo]

They can remove everybody from the ballots if they want. Let them.

WE THE PEOPLE have the RIGHT to write in on the ballot ANYBODY we choose. And there's NOTHING they can do about that!

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

Let him run. Give him or his followers no ammunition. Let him be defeated in November, and then let the justice system take care of him. Stop wasting time and effort on blocking him from running. This is the type of attention he lives for. Also, the courts will not disallow him from running. He has not been CONVICTED of anything. Even if he is, the appeals system will be drawn out long past election day 2024. The majority of voters rejected him in 2016 and 2020. He backed in electorally by a once-in-a-lifetime confluence of events in 2016.

The majority of voters rejected him in 2020. Electorally, his path to 270 is the same. As will the result be. He hasn't made any inroads into increasing his base or getting more of the independent vote that swung the election in the swing states he lost in 2020.

Let the people make the final judgement.

 

[MarathonMike]

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office​

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.

First, the Ballots

I don't see anything in the text that calls for, permits, or forbids removing a person's name from the ballots. In the primaries this is solely a State decision and in the General this still falls to the states although Federal jurisdiction may be inferred via the VRA.

I don't see that SCOTUS has any jurisdiction in the primary prospect and its jurisdiction in the General is "iffy."

Certification at the State

This is the first place I see that Trump could be excluded. State legislatures, under the 14th, could refuse to certify a Trump win and decide to submit a different slate of electors or no electors at all.

The Congress

One of three places Trump could be declared an insurrectionist. Courts, and State Legislatures being the others. My reading says that a majority of each House, any State legislature, or any Federal court has the authority to declare Trump an insurrectionist at which time Trump can only enter any Federal office, elected or not, upon a 2/3 vote of each house of Congress.

Not sure how it would work in the Congress. Would each House hold a separate vote as to whether Trump is an insurrectionist? Would the VP declare Trump ineligible and the collective Congress vote?

My thinking favors the latter as the VP is "in charge" during the certification process.

My own thinking here is that Trump is ineligible to hold any Federal office with the actual events and the numbers of people convicted for their actions under Trump's direction/banner.

I'd like to discuss how such a ban would be implemented.

DodoAlex has to be the 1000th useful idiot trying to push the "Insurrection /14th amendment" Kool-Aid. BAHAHAHAHAHA he's probably never even read the 14th amendment or knows WHY it was written.

 

[Dadoalex]

Let him run. Give him or his followers no ammunition. Let him be defeated in November, and then let the justice system take care of him. Stop wasting time and effort on blocking him from running. This is the type of attention he lives for. Also, the courts will not disallow him from running. He has not been CONVICTED of anything. Even if he is, the appeals system will be drawn out long past election day 2024. The majority of voters rejected him in 2016 and 2020. He backed in electorally by a once-in-a-lifetime confluence of events in 2016.

The majority of voters rejected him in 2020. Electorally, his path to 270 is the same. As will the result be. He hasn't made any inroads into increasing his base or getting more of the independent vote that swung the election in the swing states he lost in 2020.

Let the people make the final judgement.

The 14th doesn't require any conviction but the hundreds of currently convicted including those who've said they acted on Trump's orders are enough to make the presumption.

This thread is more about the process than the individuals.

 

[BluesLegend]

Trump will run, Trump will win then we dismantle the Dem agenda.

 

[Dadoalex]

DodoAlex has to be the 1000th useful idiot trying to push the "Insurrection /14th amendment" Kool-Aid. BAHAHAHAHAHA he's probably never even read the 14th amendment or knows WHY it was written.

Lookee.
Another brain deprived MAGAT who missed third grade reading.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

The 14th doesn't require any conviction but the hundreds of currently convicted including those who've said they acted on Trump's orders are enough to make the presumption.

This thread is more about the process than the individuals.

Then as far as the process goes, he is not exempt from running. The 14th implies conviction. Which he has not been. That is how the SC will rule.

 

[Dadoalex]

Trump will run, Trump will win then we dismantle the Dem agenda.

Irrelevant to the thread OP.

 

[BluesLegend]

Irrelevant to the thread OP.

Ah, you are a blithering idiot.

 

[Dadoalex]

Then as far as the process goes, he is not exempt from running. The 14th implies conviction. Which he has not been. That is how the SC will rule.

The text of section 3 is in the OP.

Perhaps you'd care to point out where in section 3 any conviction is required.

 

[Dadoalex]

Ah, you are a blithering idiot.

Still irrelevant.
Go copy and paste something relevant from your MAGADUMIAN Press. Obviously this is above your tiny mind's capability.

 

[The Irish Ram]

The country is voting Trump back in office and we don't give a shit about assholes supporting the Takeover 2030 by the WEF progressives...
We are closing our border and taking America back from Soros...

 

[BluesLegend]

Still irrelevant.
Go copy and paste something relevant from your MAGADUMIAN Press. Obviously this is above your tiny mind's capability.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

The text of section 3 is in the OP.

Perhaps you'd care to point out where in section 3 any conviction is required.

"shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same".

While I and many others agree that Trump did foment and engage in insurrection (cause that's what 1/6/2021 was all about), a COURT has yet to issue that proclamation. Yes, Illinois did say that he did participate in such, but that the courts would have to decide. And if he hasn't been convicted of inciting insurrection, the Supreme Court will rule he can run.

Trump’s candidacy on the Illinois ballot should be decided by the courts, an elections board hearing officer says

The hearing officer, a retired Republican judge, wrote a scathing assessment of Trump’s involvement in the Jan. 6 insurrection, but said the courts ultimately should decide. The full elections board will consider the matter Tuesday.

www.wbez.org

 

[Dadoalex]

The country is voting Trump back in office and we don't give a shit about assholes supporting the Takeover 2030 by the WEF progressives...
We are closing our border and taking America back from Soros...

Irrelevant

 

[Dadoalex]

Still, not unexpectedly, irrelevant.

 

[Dadoalex]

"shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same".

While I and many others agree that Trump did foment and engage in insurrection (cause that's what 1/6/2021 was all about), a COURT has yet to issue that proclamation. Yes, Illinois did say that he did participate in such, but that the courts would have to decide. And if he hasn't been convicted of inciting insurrection, the Supreme Court will rule he can run.

Trump’s candidacy on the Illinois ballot should be decided by the courts, an elections board hearing officer says

The hearing officer, a retired Republican judge, wrote a scathing assessment of Trump’s involvement in the Jan. 6 insurrection, but said the courts ultimately should decide. The full elections board will consider the matter Tuesday.

www.wbez.org

"shall have engaged"
Is not the same as "have been convicted of"

And the 14th does not include any judicial remedies, only a 2/3 vote by congress to remove the ban.

Given that the 14th does not give the Courts jurisdiction but does give it to the legislature(s) my view is that only the legislatures at the State and Federal levels can make the determination.

 

[theHawk]

The text of section 3 is in the OP.

Perhaps you'd care to point out where in section 3 any conviction is required.

By that standard we can bar Biden from all ballots for giving aid to the enemy (Iran, China, Hamas).

 

[theHawk]

"shall have engaged"
Is not the same as "have been convicted of"

And the 14th does not include any judicial remedies, only a 2/3 vote by congress to remove the ban.

Given that the 14th does not give the Courts jurisdiction but does give it to the legislature(s) my view is that only the legislatures at the State and Federal levels can make the determination.

You still have to prove he “engaged in insurrection”.

First off, there was no “insurrection“ on J6. It was a mostly peaceful protest.