Trying to Bar Trump From 2024 Ballot Is Unconstitutional and Lawfare at Its Worst

[Doc7505]

Trying to Bar Trump From 2024 Ballot Is Unconstitutional and Lawfare at Its Worst​

Bid to Keep Trump Off '24 Ballot Is Naked Lawfare, Unconstitutional

These anti-Trump ballot challenges are lawfare at its worst, trying to use the law and the courts as a political weapon.

www.dailysignal.com

2 Nov 2023 ~~ By Hans von Spakovsky

As state court proceedings get under way in Colorado, Michigan and Minnesota in lawsuits aimed at barring Donald Trump from appearing as a presidential candidate on the ballot in next year’s presidential election, the judges in those cases should understand that the text, history, and application of the 14th Amendment make it clear that they have no legal authority to take any such action.
Due to Trump’s supposed actions on Jan. 6, 2021, the challengers are trying to argue that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, the disqualification clause, prevents him from being president even if he is elected, so he should be removed from the ballot by state election officials.
Section 3 provides that:

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

Because Trump allegedly engaged in an insurrection, according to the challengers, he is disqualified by Section 3.
There are three major legal problems with that claim, however.
Trump Didn’t Hold An Applicable Office
First of all, Section 3 only applies to individuals who were previously a “member of Congress,” an “officer of the United States,” or a state official. Trump has never been any of those.
He has never held state office or been a U.S. senator or representative, and the U.S. Supreme Court held in 1888 in U.S. v. Mouat that “officers” are only those individuals who are appointed to positions within the federal government.
Individuals who are elected—such as the president and vice president—are not officers within the meaning of Section 3.
~Snip~

No Conviction for ‘Insurrection or Rebellion’​

Second, no federal court has convicted Trump of engaging in “insurrection or rebellion” in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2383, which makes it a crime to engage in “any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States.”
More importantly, in the second impeachment resolution of Trump on Jan. 11, 2021, he was charged by the House of Representatives in Article I with “Incitement of Insurrection.” Yet, he was acquitted by the Senate.
Given our federal constitutional system, state and federal courts should not gainsay the findings of Congress on this issue. The risk of inconsistent rulings from state and county election officials, as well as from the many different courts hearing these challenges, could cause electoral chaos.
~Snip~

Section 3 No Longer Extant?​

Third, there is an argument that can be made—and which was already adopted by one federal court—that Section 3 doesn’t even exist anymore as a constitutional matter.
Keep in mind that the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 after the end of the Civil War. It was aimed at the former members of the Confederate government and military who had previously been in Congress or held executive posts.
All of the challengers filing lawsuits to try to remove Trump from their state ballots are ignoring the final sentence in Section 3, which is a unique provision found in no other amendment to the Constitution. It allows Congress to remove the disqualification clause “by a vote of two-thirds of each House.”
Congress voted to remove the disqualification twice. The Amnesty Act of 1872 stated that the “political disabilities” imposed by Section 3 “are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever” except for members of the 36th and 37th Congresses and certain other military and foreign officials.


Commentary:
Excellent, reasoned and backed by historical fact, SCOTUS rulings and Congressional Acts by the author Hans von Spakovsky.
Democrat Socialists of America Commies use of Lawfare is obviously subjective and unconstitutional. Any judge participating in such shenanigans, should face pushback and disbarment.

 

[excalibur]

 

[yidnar]

Trying to Bar Trump From 2024 Ballot Is Unconstitutional and Lawfare at Its Worst​

Bid to Keep Trump Off '24 Ballot Is Naked Lawfare, Unconstitutional

These anti-Trump ballot challenges are lawfare at its worst, trying to use the law and the courts as a political weapon.

www.dailysignal.com

2 Nov 2023 ~~ By Hans von Spakovsky

As state court proceedings get under way in Colorado, Michigan and Minnesota in lawsuits aimed at barring Donald Trump from appearing as a presidential candidate on the ballot in next year’s presidential election, the judges in those cases should understand that the text, history, and application of the 14th Amendment make it clear that they have no legal authority to take any such action.
Due to Trump’s supposed actions on Jan. 6, 2021, the challengers are trying to argue that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, the disqualification clause, prevents him from being president even if he is elected, so he should be removed from the ballot by state election officials.
Section 3 provides that:

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

Because Trump allegedly engaged in an insurrection, according to the challengers, he is disqualified by Section 3.
There are three major legal problems with that claim, however.
Trump Didn’t Hold An Applicable Office
First of all, Section 3 only applies to individuals who were previously a “member of Congress,” an “officer of the United States,” or a state official. Trump has never been any of those.
He has never held state office or been a U.S. senator or representative, and the U.S. Supreme Court held in 1888 in U.S. v. Mouat that “officers” are only those individuals who are appointed to positions within the federal government.
Individuals who are elected—such as the president and vice president—are not officers within the meaning of Section 3.
~Snip~

No Conviction for ‘Insurrection or Rebellion’​

Second, no federal court has convicted Trump of engaging in “insurrection or rebellion” in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2383, which makes it a crime to engage in “any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States.”
More importantly, in the second impeachment resolution of Trump on Jan. 11, 2021, he was charged by the House of Representatives in Article I with “Incitement of Insurrection.” Yet, he was acquitted by the Senate.
Given our federal constitutional system, state and federal courts should not gainsay the findings of Congress on this issue. The risk of inconsistent rulings from state and county election officials, as well as from the many different courts hearing these challenges, could cause electoral chaos.
~Snip~

Section 3 No Longer Extant?​

Third, there is an argument that can be made—and which was already adopted by one federal court—that Section 3 doesn’t even exist anymore as a constitutional matter.
Keep in mind that the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 after the end of the Civil War. It was aimed at the former members of the Confederate government and military who had previously been in Congress or held executive posts.
All of the challengers filing lawsuits to try to remove Trump from their state ballots are ignoring the final sentence in Section 3, which is a unique provision found in no other amendment to the Constitution. It allows Congress to remove the disqualification clause “by a vote of two-thirds of each House.”
Congress voted to remove the disqualification twice. The Amnesty Act of 1872 stated that the “political disabilities” imposed by Section 3 “are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever” except for members of the 36th and 37th Congresses and certain other military and foreign officials.


Commentary:
Excellent, reasoned and backed by historical fact, SCOTUS rulings and Congressional Acts by the author Hans von Spakovsky.
Democrat Socialists of America Commies use of Lawfare is obviously subjective and unconstitutional. Any judge participating in such shenanigans, should face pushback and disbarment.

 

[Edgetho]

Trying to Bar Trump From 2024 Ballot Is Unconstitutional and Lawfare at Its Worst

They're dimocraps. What's yer point.

 

[Oddball]

Not in a single one of the avalanche of indictments has he even been charged with insurrection, yet he's supposed to be DQ-ed from the ballot for insurrection.

 

[Independentthinker]

Trying to Bar Trump From 2024 Ballot Is Unconstitutional and Lawfare at Its Worst​

Bid to Keep Trump Off '24 Ballot Is Naked Lawfare, Unconstitutional

These anti-Trump ballot challenges are lawfare at its worst, trying to use the law and the courts as a political weapon.

www.dailysignal.com

2 Nov 2023 ~~ By Hans von Spakovsky

As state court proceedings get under way in Colorado, Michigan and Minnesota in lawsuits aimed at barring Donald Trump from appearing as a presidential candidate on the ballot in next year’s presidential election, the judges in those cases should understand that the text, history, and application of the 14th Amendment make it clear that they have no legal authority to take any such action.
Due to Trump’s supposed actions on Jan. 6, 2021, the challengers are trying to argue that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, the disqualification clause, prevents him from being president even if he is elected, so he should be removed from the ballot by state election officials.
Section 3 provides that:

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

Because Trump allegedly engaged in an insurrection, according to the challengers, he is disqualified by Section 3.
There are three major legal problems with that claim, however.
Trump Didn’t Hold An Applicable Office
First of all, Section 3 only applies to individuals who were previously a “member of Congress,” an “officer of the United States,” or a state official. Trump has never been any of those.
He has never held state office or been a U.S. senator or representative, and the U.S. Supreme Court held in 1888 in U.S. v. Mouat that “officers” are only those individuals who are appointed to positions within the federal government.
Individuals who are elected—such as the president and vice president—are not officers within the meaning of Section 3.
~Snip~

No Conviction for ‘Insurrection or Rebellion’​

Second, no federal court has convicted Trump of engaging in “insurrection or rebellion” in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2383, which makes it a crime to engage in “any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States.”
More importantly, in the second impeachment resolution of Trump on Jan. 11, 2021, he was charged by the House of Representatives in Article I with “Incitement of Insurrection.” Yet, he was acquitted by the Senate.
Given our federal constitutional system, state and federal courts should not gainsay the findings of Congress on this issue. The risk of inconsistent rulings from state and county election officials, as well as from the many different courts hearing these challenges, could cause electoral chaos.
~Snip~

Section 3 No Longer Extant?​

Third, there is an argument that can be made—and which was already adopted by one federal court—that Section 3 doesn’t even exist anymore as a constitutional matter.
Keep in mind that the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 after the end of the Civil War. It was aimed at the former members of the Confederate government and military who had previously been in Congress or held executive posts.
All of the challengers filing lawsuits to try to remove Trump from their state ballots are ignoring the final sentence in Section 3, which is a unique provision found in no other amendment to the Constitution. It allows Congress to remove the disqualification clause “by a vote of two-thirds of each House.”
Congress voted to remove the disqualification twice. The Amnesty Act of 1872 stated that the “political disabilities” imposed by Section 3 “are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever” except for members of the 36th and 37th Congresses and certain other military and foreign officials.


Commentary:
Excellent, reasoned and backed by historical fact, SCOTUS rulings and Congressional Acts by the author Hans von Spakovsky.
Democrat Socialists of America Commies use of Lawfare is obviously subjective and unconstitutional. Any judge participating in such shenanigans, should face pushback and disbarment.

Democrats make their own laws as they go and own most law enforcement agencies in order to weaponize them. And, even if the Supreme Court rules on something, Democrats want to just ignore those rulings.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Everything being done to Trump is testing. Whatever works will be used against the next person that opposes enemy democrats.

 

[Care4all]

1. That's Trump's defense? The former president can be as lawless as he wants and is above the law and the writers of the amendment didn't mean him?? No wonder the trial moved forward with merit in Colorado.....where 6 Republicans are challenging him in court, (with the help of a Democratic group of legal eagles) Trump was the Chief Executive Officer of the United States, he's included.

2. People were charged with Sedition, Seditious Conspiracy for 1/6 and convicted of it, with near 20 year sentences....the penalties for sedition are even greater than a simple insurrection.... Trump, in the least, aided and abetted the enemy by sitting idle for 3 hours and not calling it off or sending in help, while Ashley Babbitt was killed...and others, and by telling 1/6 convicted felons, he would pardon them.....

The section of the 14th requires No Charges or convictions..... So we will see how the case turns out..... ???

This is where it seems to me, that more should be needed..... though by reading it plainly, no more is required?

Even if Trump lost, he could request full congress, to allow him to run, if 2/3s say yes, then he can.

 

[Oddball]

1. That's Trump's defense? The former president can be as lawless as he wants and is above the law and the writers of the amendment didn't mean him?? No wonder the trial moved forward with merit in Colorado.....where 6 Republicans are challenging him in court, (with the help of a Democratic group of legal eagles) Trump was the Chief Executive Officer of the United States, he's included.

2. People were charged with Sedition, Seditious Conspiracy for 1/6 and convicted of it, with near 20 year sentences....the penalties for sedition are even greater than a simple insurrection.... Trump, in the least, aided and abetted the enemy by sitting idle for 3 hours and not calling it off or sending in help, while Ashley Babbitt was killed...and others, and by telling 1/6 convicted felons, he would pardon them.....

The section of the 14th requires No Charges or convictions..... So we will see how the case turns out..... ???

This is where it seems to me, that more should be needed..... though by reading it plainly, no more is required?

Even if Trump lost, he could request full congress, to allow him to run, if 2/3s say yes, then he can.

 

[Leviticus]

Well, it would be constitutional if they had evidence that trump knew that the attack on the capital, what happened before it did. Federal law bars, any person who conspires to commit rebellion or interaction against the government from holding public office.

This law was passed to prevent former confederates from being allowed to retake their offices in congress after the war. Many confederates and states that stayed loyal to the unions such as west virginia and kentucky Were banned by their states from running for federal office to represent those states.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Trying to Bar Trump From 2024 Ballot Is Unconstitutional and Lawfare at Its Worst​

Bid to Keep Trump Off '24 Ballot Is Naked Lawfare, Unconstitutional

These anti-Trump ballot challenges are lawfare at its worst, trying to use the law and the courts as a political weapon.

www.dailysignal.com

2 Nov 2023 ~~ By Hans von Spakovsky

As state court proceedings get under way in Colorado, Michigan and Minnesota in lawsuits aimed at barring Donald Trump from appearing as a presidential candidate on the ballot in next year’s presidential election, the judges in those cases should understand that the text, history, and application of the 14th Amendment make it clear that they have no legal authority to take any such action.
Due to Trump’s supposed actions on Jan. 6, 2021, the challengers are trying to argue that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, the disqualification clause, prevents him from being president even if he is elected, so he should be removed from the ballot by state election officials.
Section 3 provides that:

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

Because Trump allegedly engaged in an insurrection, according to the challengers, he is disqualified by Section 3.
There are three major legal problems with that claim, however.
Trump Didn’t Hold An Applicable Office
First of all, Section 3 only applies to individuals who were previously a “member of Congress,” an “officer of the United States,” or a state official. Trump has never been any of those.
He has never held state office or been a U.S. senator or representative, and the U.S. Supreme Court held in 1888 in U.S. v. Mouat that “officers” are only those individuals who are appointed to positions within the federal government.
Individuals who are elected—such as the president and vice president—are not officers within the meaning of Section 3.
~Snip~

No Conviction for ‘Insurrection or Rebellion’​

Second, no federal court has convicted Trump of engaging in “insurrection or rebellion” in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2383, which makes it a crime to engage in “any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States.”
More importantly, in the second impeachment resolution of Trump on Jan. 11, 2021, he was charged by the House of Representatives in Article I with “Incitement of Insurrection.” Yet, he was acquitted by the Senate.
Given our federal constitutional system, state and federal courts should not gainsay the findings of Congress on this issue. The risk of inconsistent rulings from state and county election officials, as well as from the many different courts hearing these challenges, could cause electoral chaos.
~Snip~

Section 3 No Longer Extant?​

Third, there is an argument that can be made—and which was already adopted by one federal court—that Section 3 doesn’t even exist anymore as a constitutional matter.
Keep in mind that the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 after the end of the Civil War. It was aimed at the former members of the Confederate government and military who had previously been in Congress or held executive posts.
All of the challengers filing lawsuits to try to remove Trump from their state ballots are ignoring the final sentence in Section 3, which is a unique provision found in no other amendment to the Constitution. It allows Congress to remove the disqualification clause “by a vote of two-thirds of each House.”
Congress voted to remove the disqualification twice. The Amnesty Act of 1872 stated that the “political disabilities” imposed by Section 3 “are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever” except for members of the 36th and 37th Congresses and certain other military and foreign officials.


Commentary:
Excellent, reasoned and backed by historical fact, SCOTUS rulings and Congressional Acts by the author Hans von Spakovsky.
Democrat Socialists of America Commies use of Lawfare is obviously subjective and unconstitutional. Any judge participating in such shenanigans, should face pushback and disbarment.

Didn't read the spiel that is your post but I do agree that Trump should not be removed from the ballot as he hasn't been convicted of insurrection.

 

[Crepitus]

Trying to Bar Trump From 2024 Ballot Is Unconstitutional and Lawfare at Its Worst​

Bid to Keep Trump Off '24 Ballot Is Naked Lawfare, Unconstitutional

These anti-Trump ballot challenges are lawfare at its worst, trying to use the law and the courts as a political weapon.

www.dailysignal.com

2 Nov 2023 ~~ By Hans von Spakovsky

As state court proceedings get under way in Colorado, Michigan and Minnesota in lawsuits aimed at barring Donald Trump from appearing as a presidential candidate on the ballot in next year’s presidential election, the judges in those cases should understand that the text, history, and application of the 14th Amendment make it clear that they have no legal authority to take any such action.
Due to Trump’s supposed actions on Jan. 6, 2021, the challengers are trying to argue that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, the disqualification clause, prevents him from being president even if he is elected, so he should be removed from the ballot by state election officials.
Section 3 provides that:

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

Because Trump allegedly engaged in an insurrection, according to the challengers, he is disqualified by Section 3.
There are three major legal problems with that claim, however.
Trump Didn’t Hold An Applicable Office
First of all, Section 3 only applies to individuals who were previously a “member of Congress,” an “officer of the United States,” or a state official. Trump has never been any of those.
He has never held state office or been a U.S. senator or representative, and the U.S. Supreme Court held in 1888 in U.S. v. Mouat that “officers” are only those individuals who are appointed to positions within the federal government.
Individuals who are elected—such as the president and vice president—are not officers within the meaning of Section 3.
~Snip~

No Conviction for ‘Insurrection or Rebellion’​

Second, no federal court has convicted Trump of engaging in “insurrection or rebellion” in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2383, which makes it a crime to engage in “any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States.”
More importantly, in the second impeachment resolution of Trump on Jan. 11, 2021, he was charged by the House of Representatives in Article I with “Incitement of Insurrection.” Yet, he was acquitted by the Senate.
Given our federal constitutional system, state and federal courts should not gainsay the findings of Congress on this issue. The risk of inconsistent rulings from state and county election officials, as well as from the many different courts hearing these challenges, could cause electoral chaos.
~Snip~

Section 3 No Longer Extant?​

Third, there is an argument that can be made—and which was already adopted by one federal court—that Section 3 doesn’t even exist anymore as a constitutional matter.
Keep in mind that the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 after the end of the Civil War. It was aimed at the former members of the Confederate government and military who had previously been in Congress or held executive posts.
All of the challengers filing lawsuits to try to remove Trump from their state ballots are ignoring the final sentence in Section 3, which is a unique provision found in no other amendment to the Constitution. It allows Congress to remove the disqualification clause “by a vote of two-thirds of each House.”
Congress voted to remove the disqualification twice. The Amnesty Act of 1872 stated that the “political disabilities” imposed by Section 3 “are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever” except for members of the 36th and 37th Congresses and certain other military and foreign officials.


Commentary:
Excellent, reasoned and backed by historical fact, SCOTUS rulings and Congressional Acts by the author Hans von Spakovsky.
Democrat Socialists of America Commies use of Lawfare is obviously subjective and unconstitutional. Any judge participating in such shenanigans, should face pushback and disbarment.

Actually it's completely constitutional.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Actually it's completely constitutional.

It is constitutional to try to remove him legally but in my opinion it should fail.

 

[Care4all]

Not in a single one of the avalanche of indictments has he even been charged with insurrection, yet he's supposed to be DQ-ed from the ballot for insurrection.

View attachment 852241

The section 3 of the 14th amendment plain text, does not require a conviction for insurrection.....

And that's an issue that will have to be settled by the courts, likely ending up in the SC.... if they take the case up

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Trying to Bar Trump From 2024 Ballot Is Unconstitutional and Lawfare at Its Worst​

Bid to Keep Trump Off '24 Ballot Is Naked Lawfare, Unconstitutional

These anti-Trump ballot challenges are lawfare at its worst, trying to use the law and the courts as a political weapon.

www.dailysignal.com

2 Nov 2023 ~~ By Hans von Spakovsky

As state court proceedings get under way in Colorado, Michigan and Minnesota in lawsuits aimed at barring Donald Trump from appearing as a presidential candidate on the ballot in next year’s presidential election, the judges in those cases should understand that the text, history, and application of the 14th Amendment make it clear that they have no legal authority to take any such action.
Due to Trump’s supposed actions on Jan. 6, 2021, the challengers are trying to argue that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, the disqualification clause, prevents him from being president even if he is elected, so he should be removed from the ballot by state election officials.
Section 3 provides that:

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

Because Trump allegedly engaged in an insurrection, according to the challengers, he is disqualified by Section 3.
There are three major legal problems with that claim, however.
Trump Didn’t Hold An Applicable Office
First of all, Section 3 only applies to individuals who were previously a “member of Congress,” an “officer of the United States,” or a state official. Trump has never been any of those.
He has never held state office or been a U.S. senator or representative, and the U.S. Supreme Court held in 1888 in U.S. v. Mouat that “officers” are only those individuals who are appointed to positions within the federal government.
Individuals who are elected—such as the president and vice president—are not officers within the meaning of Section 3.
~Snip~

No Conviction for ‘Insurrection or Rebellion’​

Second, no federal court has convicted Trump of engaging in “insurrection or rebellion” in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2383, which makes it a crime to engage in “any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States.”
More importantly, in the second impeachment resolution of Trump on Jan. 11, 2021, he was charged by the House of Representatives in Article I with “Incitement of Insurrection.” Yet, he was acquitted by the Senate.
Given our federal constitutional system, state and federal courts should not gainsay the findings of Congress on this issue. The risk of inconsistent rulings from state and county election officials, as well as from the many different courts hearing these challenges, could cause electoral chaos.
~Snip~

Section 3 No Longer Extant?​

Third, there is an argument that can be made—and which was already adopted by one federal court—that Section 3 doesn’t even exist anymore as a constitutional matter.
Keep in mind that the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 after the end of the Civil War. It was aimed at the former members of the Confederate government and military who had previously been in Congress or held executive posts.
All of the challengers filing lawsuits to try to remove Trump from their state ballots are ignoring the final sentence in Section 3, which is a unique provision found in no other amendment to the Constitution. It allows Congress to remove the disqualification clause “by a vote of two-thirds of each House.”
Congress voted to remove the disqualification twice. The Amnesty Act of 1872 stated that the “political disabilities” imposed by Section 3 “are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever” except for members of the 36th and 37th Congresses and certain other military and foreign officials.


Commentary:
Excellent, reasoned and backed by historical fact, SCOTUS rulings and Congressional Acts by the author Hans von Spakovsky.
Democrat Socialists of America Commies use of Lawfare is obviously subjective and unconstitutional. Any judge participating in such shenanigans, should face pushback and disbarment.

It's not the first time democrats kept a republican off the ballot in select states and still lost.

 

[Augustine_]

Trying to Bar Trump From 2024 Ballot Is Unconstitutional and Lawfare at Its Worst​

Bid to Keep Trump Off '24 Ballot Is Naked Lawfare, Unconstitutional

These anti-Trump ballot challenges are lawfare at its worst, trying to use the law and the courts as a political weapon.

www.dailysignal.com

2 Nov 2023 ~~ By Hans von Spakovsky

As state court proceedings get under way in Colorado, Michigan and Minnesota in lawsuits aimed at barring Donald Trump from appearing as a presidential candidate on the ballot in next year’s presidential election, the judges in those cases should understand that the text, history, and application of the 14th Amendment make it clear that they have no legal authority to take any such action.
Due to Trump’s supposed actions on Jan. 6, 2021, the challengers are trying to argue that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, the disqualification clause, prevents him from being president even if he is elected, so he should be removed from the ballot by state election officials.
Section 3 provides that:

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

Because Trump allegedly engaged in an insurrection, according to the challengers, he is disqualified by Section 3.
There are three major legal problems with that claim, however.
Trump Didn’t Hold An Applicable Office
First of all, Section 3 only applies to individuals who were previously a “member of Congress,” an “officer of the United States,” or a state official. Trump has never been any of those.
He has never held state office or been a U.S. senator or representative, and the U.S. Supreme Court held in 1888 in U.S. v. Mouat that “officers” are only those individuals who are appointed to positions within the federal government.
Individuals who are elected—such as the president and vice president—are not officers within the meaning of Section 3.
~Snip~

No Conviction for ‘Insurrection or Rebellion’​

Second, no federal court has convicted Trump of engaging in “insurrection or rebellion” in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2383, which makes it a crime to engage in “any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States.”
More importantly, in the second impeachment resolution of Trump on Jan. 11, 2021, he was charged by the House of Representatives in Article I with “Incitement of Insurrection.” Yet, he was acquitted by the Senate.
Given our federal constitutional system, state and federal courts should not gainsay the findings of Congress on this issue. The risk of inconsistent rulings from state and county election officials, as well as from the many different courts hearing these challenges, could cause electoral chaos.
~Snip~

Section 3 No Longer Extant?​

Third, there is an argument that can be made—and which was already adopted by one federal court—that Section 3 doesn’t even exist anymore as a constitutional matter.
Keep in mind that the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 after the end of the Civil War. It was aimed at the former members of the Confederate government and military who had previously been in Congress or held executive posts.
All of the challengers filing lawsuits to try to remove Trump from their state ballots are ignoring the final sentence in Section 3, which is a unique provision found in no other amendment to the Constitution. It allows Congress to remove the disqualification clause “by a vote of two-thirds of each House.”
Congress voted to remove the disqualification twice. The Amnesty Act of 1872 stated that the “political disabilities” imposed by Section 3 “are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever” except for members of the 36th and 37th Congresses and certain other military and foreign officials.


Commentary:
Excellent, reasoned and backed by historical fact, SCOTUS rulings and Congressional Acts by the author Hans von Spakovsky.
Democrat Socialists of America Commies use of Lawfare is obviously subjective and unconstitutional. Any judge participating in such shenanigans, should face pushback and disbarment.

He won't be able to campaign in those states from prison anyways, so you shouldn't get too miffed about it

 

[Clipper]

Not in a single one of the avalanche of indictments has he even been charged with insurrection, yet he's supposed to be DQ-ed from the ballot for insurrection.

View attachment 852241

Lock his ass up for the 91 felonies & be done with him.

Do stupid things, win stupid prizes.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

He won't be able to campaign in those states from prison anyways, so you shouldn't get too miffed about it

He's not going to prison

 

[Rawley]

1. That's Trump's defense? The former president can be as lawless as he wants and is above the law and the writers of the amendment didn't mean him??

Nope. Perhaps you should read the analysis before commenting.

 

[Rawley]

The section 3 of the 14th amendment plain text, does not require a conviction for insurrection.....

And that's an issue that will have to be settled by the courts, likely ending up in the SC.... if they take the case up

Biden's own DOJ has charged over a 1,000 January 6th participants. Not a single one charged with insurrection. Pretty steep hill to climb arguing that Biden's DOJ are clueless misfits that don't understand Federal law.