14th Amendment, Why Isn't Trump Disqualified from Running Already?

[Anonymous]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-can-and-should-be-disqualified-from-running-for-president-under-the-14th-amendment?ref=home

“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.”

The lack of a specified method of enforcement can hardly be fatal to the legal theory since the Constitution generally does not give specific enforcement instructions. I guess it would come down to the Supreme Court to rule on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-can-and-should-be-disqualified-from-running-for-president-under-the-14th-amendment?ref=home

“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.”

The lack of a specified method of enforcement can hardly be fatal to the legal theory since the Constitution generally does not give specific enforcement instructions. I guess it would come down to the Supreme Court to rule on this.

VP Harris could just reject any electors for Trump based on this. Trump himself said this is completely legal.

[Anonymous]

Because you are weaponizing the term insurrection. Not a surprise Democrats want it to be called an insurrection, it is to their political advantage. Problem is that it is very, very, very hard to credibly prove Turnip was masterminding an insurrection. And until you can reasonably prove beyond a doubt, going down this path only worsens the political divide.

[Anonymous]

Because he hasn’t been convicted of anything yet. And I blame DOJ for that. Pathetic it took this long.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because you are weaponizing the term insurrection. Not a surprise Democrats want it to be called an insurrection, it is to their political advantage. Problem is that it is very, very, very hard to credibly prove Turnip was masterminding an insurrection. And until you can reasonably prove beyond a doubt, going down this path only worsens the political divide.

+ a million
Not even Jack Smith has charged him with anything close to this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because you are weaponizing the term insurrection. Not a surprise Democrats want it to be called an insurrection, it is to their political advantage. Problem is that it is very, very, very hard to credibly prove Turnip was masterminding an insurrection. And until you can reasonably prove beyond a doubt, going down this path only worsens the political divide.

This is a problem with the "definitions don't matter" crowd that likes to change the meaning of words to suit their current whim. You quickly descend into chaos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-can-and-should-be-disqualified-from-running-for-president-under-the-14th-amendment?ref=home

“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.”

The lack of a specified method of enforcement can hardly be fatal to the legal theory since the Constitution generally does not give specific enforcement instructions. I guess it would come down to the Supreme Court to rule on this.

Because the 14th Amendment was enacted after the Civil War to prevent some individuals from holding some public offices and American's have simply lost the ability to read. As President Trump has not been charged nor convicted (other than in the court of public opinion by some) of the following "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."?

The answer is no, so until such time, you will have people say he is disqualified to hold the office of President, but they would be stating an opinion that in the end can only be validated or invalidated by a Supreme Court ruling on what Section 3 of the 14th Amendment means.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-can-and-should-be-disqualified-from-running-for-president-under-the-14th-amendment?ref=home

“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.”

The lack of a specified method of enforcement can hardly be fatal to the legal theory since the Constitution generally does not give specific enforcement instructions. I guess it would come down to the Supreme Court to rule on this.

Because the 14th Amendment was enacted after the Civil War to prevent some individuals from holding some public offices and American's have simply lost the ability to read. As President Trump has not been charged nor convicted (other than in the court of public opinion by some) of the following "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."?

The answer is no, so until such time, you will have people say he is disqualified to hold the office of President, but they would be stating an opinion that in the end can only be validated or invalidated by a Supreme Court ruling on what Section 3 of the 14th Amendment means.

It says "engaged in" not convicted of insurrection. The former Confederates barred from holding office were not put on trial or convicted of insurrection or rebellion either... but they obviously had engaged in it.

[Anonymous]

Colorado too

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Colorado too

Neither the Colorado nor the Minnesota efforts will pass lagal muster. This move screams of desperation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because you are weaponizing the term insurrection. Not a surprise Democrats want it to be called an insurrection, it is to their political advantage. Problem is that it is very, very, very hard to credibly prove Turnip was masterminding an insurrection. And until you can reasonably prove beyond a doubt, going down this path only worsens the political divide.

No you do not have to prove to a criminal standard. Trump will have to provide proof he was not involved but he already has admitted it. So now it is up to SCOTUS. SCOTUS is very selective about what part of the constitution it upholds. This would involve SCOTUS striking down a whole Amendment.

It was put place after the civil war and there is a provision to allow insurrectionists to hold office again. I think SCOTUS would say have your vote in Congress. If you win you are in. If you fail to get the vote needed you are done.

It will be very tough for Trump to serve again. Lot of republicans want him out of the way so they can take power and trump does not have the power of the office any more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because he hasn’t been convicted of anything yet. And I blame DOJ for that. Pathetic it took this long.

The Constitution doesn't require "conviction" or any "criminal" behavior at all before this provision is triggered.

[Anonymous]

That Trump tried to overthrow the government on January 6 is not subject to serious dispute. Thanks to Liz Cheney and the House investigation, we know this. But, when it mattered, Republicans decided not to vote to impeach him for his coup attempt; because they feared physical violence from Trump's supporters. Violence and intimidation was politically successful.

[Anonymous]

If this was to be done, it needed to be challenged on Jan 21, 2021. It's too late. Let him run, and lose, which he will.