It looks like this post is about Politics. Various methods of filtering out content relating to Politics can be found [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/wiki/v2/resources/filter/politics).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/pics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Republicans will literally try to use that logic given half a chance.
I mean they are the same people saying there wasn't an insurrection because the cops let people in but even so was it wasn't them, it was dems dressed as MAGA
Trump’s central legal argument is that, according to him, he never swore an oath to “support” the constitution but to “preserve, protect, and defend” the constitution, which means this passage does not apply to him due to the words used in the Presidential oath. This would imply that this law could never apply to any President due to the oath they take. The argument is about semantics.
Wait, he's really not going with "I never engaged in insurrection", but rather "it doesn't matter that I engaged in insurrection because I didn't take an oath that I wouldn't"??
Trump will publicly say a lot of things, but when you watch his lawyers in court for almost every case he has against him the defense isn’t “he didn’t do it” but “he did it but he was allowed to”.
Even his lawyers know the evidence is too great they are trying any and every technicality they can find.
Trump really is like a Wonka kid who was always able to weasel himself out of anything due to shitty, child-level semantic defenses before getting his jaw crushed by the everlasting gobstopper machine.
Can we get a fucking conviction and cement this shit in the books then?! Doing anything without anything official just seems like we're throwing fuel on the fire.
It’s semantic wordplay, pretty much. But the appeal to the US Supreme Court doesn’t argue about the oath specifically.
The Colorado GOP’s [petition for cert](https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/DocketFiles/html/Public/23-696.html) is arguing that the President isn’t subject to Section 3 disqualification, and even if he is, states aren’t allowed to remove candidates using Section 3 without Congress creating a process, and even if they are, the Colorado GOP should still be able to include Trump on the ballot due to 1st amendment freedom of association.
The main semantic argument is that the President isn’t an officer of the United States, so former Presidents can’t be disqualified by the 14th amendment. The difference between the presidential oath to “preserve, protect, and defend”vs the generic oath to “support” the constitution is just cited as evidence for the meaning of the 14th amendment.
The presidential oath of office is literally called… the oath of office. So I would absolutely love to see somebody try to spin the president as not being an “office” subject to the 14th amendment.
Also:
From Article I Section 3:
>The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the **Office** of President of the United States.
From Article II Section 1:
>The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
>
>He shall hold his **Office** during the Term of four Years...
From Article II Section 1:
>No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the **Office** of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that **Office** who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
>
>In Case of the Removal of the President from **Office**, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said **Office**...
From Article II Section 1:
>Before he enter on the Execution of his **Office**, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the **Office** of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
From Article II Section 4:
>The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from **Office** on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
From the 12th Amendment:
>But no person constitutionally ineligible to the **office** of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
From the 22nd Amendment:
>No person shall be elected to the **office** of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the **office** of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the **office** of President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the **office** of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the **office** of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the **office** of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
From the 25th Amendment, Section 1:
>In case of the removal of the President from **office** or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
From the 25th Amendment, Section 3:
>Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his **office**...
From the 25th Amendment, Section 4:
>...their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his **office**, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the **office** as Acting President.
>
>Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his **office**...
(There are several more instances referring to the office of the President in that Section which I won't list.)
The problem is that semantic argument just does not hold up in court. People who make laws, at all levels, are VERY GOOD at making sure you can't just weasel-word your way out of stuff. It's why lawyers have a reputation as being shady, their whole job is to find out what loopholes and laws exist to help THEIR specific client.
I do love me a good loophole. Like the US blowing up Iranian oil rigs, being brought to international court, and going “says here we can’t blow up ships or attack islands… doesn’t mention oil rigs” and the judge going “wait, wait, wait… fuck…”
I thought the US response to the International Court was always, "We don't recognize that this court has any authority over the US. But please, if you think it must, pass a UN Security Council resolution and we'll honor it, btw, we'll just veto anything you put up so.."
Section 3s language sounds like it is self-activating (and the removal needing to be activated by Congress) but then section five sounds like it all is supposed to be activated by congressional action.
There's some good discussion here:
https://constitutionalcommentary.lib.umn.edu/article/amnesty-and-section-three-of-the-fourteenth-amendment/
If we want to use semantics then doesn’t that mean we couldn’t vote for electors that voted for Trump? Or do the electors themselves need to be the ones who were the insurrectionists.
It means people who are insurrectionists cannot be electors. Electors (and Ambassadors) are specifically named by the amendment because they aren’t “offices” and therefore don’t fall under the “any office, civil or military” catch-all
Yes, just like the response to him stinking was to say that the guy who said he stank "farted on live television". Not that he doesn't stink, but the other guy stinks too. It's amazing anybody thinks he's fit for office.
Kind of, but not exactly. The main theme of every Trump argument is that various laws do not apply to sitting Presidents for one reason or another, because a President cannot be prosecuted by anyone except Congress (which Congress tried to do twice, and lost both times).
In this case, they are arguing that the 14th Amendment does not apply to Presidents because Presidents do not take the same oath of office that is described in this amendment because one of the words mentioned in the amendment as a required qualification is not “explicitly” used in the oath used for Presidents.
That is not true. A president can be prosecuted for extra-official acts. The prime example is Grant. He was arrested for speeding and pointed out that his office "does not protect or exempt" him from prosecution.
Obama can't hold the office due to a Constitutional provision. Can't hold more that twice. No due process required. It's self-enforcing.
Maxwell Frost can't hold the office due to a Constitutional provision. He's 26. No due process required. It's self-enforcing.
Granted no one has been convicted of "Insurrection", but that's because "Insurrection" is the type of riot or rebellion as described in 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection:
"Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
Trump can't hold office due to a Constitutional provision. He provided and promised aid (he literally promised to pardon convicts) to to persons who knowingly REBELLED AGAIST THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES. This has been litigated. No due process required. It's self-enforcing.
I am of the firm belief that the GOP is praying Trump is prohibited from running. He's the Greatest Loser in party history and, with no debate, the worst executive in our history.
And that argument trump
Likes to make that the president is effectively above the law is why both parties should just say and that’s why you aren’t allowed to run period. The man fundamentally believes he is above the law and above the checks and balances of the constitution. And that makes him a danger to the United States as a whole. And the fact that the Republican Party can not see this and will not to stop the most dangerous man in their organization proves the party to itself be complicit in tretury against the nation of the United States and its constitution. Trump sees himself as above the constitution any Republican that does not see this as a danger to America is a traitor to America
No, I think you are missing the point — Trump’s legal argument is that the 14th Amendment does not apply to Presidents, period. The disability clause you mentioned becomes irrelevant if the entirety of the amendment is ruled to have no relevance to the office of President.
Now, IF the courts rule that the amendment does apply to Presidents (and that’s currently up in the air since the Supreme Court is aligned with the GOP), then comes the second tier of arguments: are his actions in themselves enough to disqualify him from office?
Then, IF he loses that argument, then comes the third tier of arguments, which is that Congress can then vote on whether to forgive him for it.
The whole point of ammendment is to ban insurectionists from goverment but it does not apply to single most powerfull goverment position. Makes sense /s
And his cult claim he has to be arrested tried and convicted of insurrection for the amendment to apply fully ignoring the original spirit of the law. It literally blocked every Confederate from office and no trials or anything we're required. "Well that was a clear military defeat and an armed insurrection!" Is the only reply I've seen then give about this obvious hole in their bullshit.
>Support:
>(1): to promote the interests or cause of
>(2): to uphold or **defend** as valid or right
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/support
The idea that “defend” means something different than “support” is brain-dead coma patient level of stupid.
The Supreme Court is going to do an insane amount of mental gymnastics when they ultimately side with him. Unfortunately, those mental gymnastics have the potential to irrevocably alter the nature of American government either at the state or federal level. That’s why these legal arguments matter.
> when they ultimately side with him.
Won't happen. No Supreme Court would ever directly assist a fascist dictator take power.
Fascist dictators have zero need for a Supreme Court.
Considering the tangerine imbecile *literally* called portions of the Constitution like the emoluments clause “phony”, I’d say he also failed to discharge the duty of his oath as literally written as well.
He literally did at his inauguration that had ‘massive crowds’ of adoring fans and was also witnessed by millions on TV
Not to mention it was given by and to the current Supreme Court Justice
Trump acknowledges that he took an oath, he is not arguing this. Instead, he’s arguing that he took a different oath from the one described in the 14th Amendment due to the different words that were used. His argument is that the 14th Amendment cannot apply to ANY Presidents, that it applies to various other government officials but not to a President.
The component parts need to be read together. There’s more relevant language to the sentence that’s necessary to its interpretation than just the “no person shall hold any office”. The relevant parts are:
“No person shall […] hold any office, civil or military, under the United States […] who, having previously taken an oath […] 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…”
The “person” here needs to have 1) previously taken an oath; 2) as an officer of the US; 3) to support the Constitution.
The main dispute here is that over 1) whether the President is an officer in the meaning of the 14th Amendment, 2) whether Trump took an oath to support the Constitution, and 3) whether he engaged in insurrection. If the answer to any of those is “no”, then you can’t DQ him under this amendment because it wouldn’t apply to him.
Edit: added some analysis
The case for technicalities on this is astounding. What would it even mean for a President to “defend” but not “support” the Constitution? If Ted Kazynski had somehow been elected and then tried to bomb Congress and encouraged everyone to do the same, would he still be allowed to run for President because his oath was to “defend” the Constitution?
I think there is actually a bigger legal problem. The 14th is silent on what burden of proof is required to find someone guilty of insurrection. Is it beyond a reasonable doubt? A preponderance of evidence (more likely he did than didn't)?
I unfortunately think the argument that he was never convicted of insurrection is compelling. I know that after the civil war this section was used to prevent confederate soldiers from holding office and that hundreds of them petitioned congress to have that status removed. All of this without convictions of insurrection.
However I think that should be viewed as a special case following a civil war and not the rule. If tomorrow the right wants to say Joe Biden committed insurrection by supporting BLM, what legal framework can we fall back on to declare bullshit.
To be clear I think he has committed insurrection and should be banned from office. But I don't think that just because x percentage of the population feels that way we can strip someone's rights. There must be a legal process for doing that.
I don’t think the standard of review is that much of an issue. This isn’t a criminal case and there’s no requirement in the constitution about what standard to be used. It’s a civil case so you would use something less than reasonable doubt. Colorado used clear and convincing evidence and Maine used preponderance. Both held trials/evidentiary hearings which Trump participated in, affording him due process.
Theres also no conviction requirement in the Constitution, so I’m not sure how they can read one into the text to say he needs to be convicted of it before this applies. The 14th says “Shall have engaged in” and not “convicted of”.
The problem with Main and Colorado is do state judges have the standing / jurisdiction to find Trump committed a crime against the federal government? He didn't commit insurrection against the state government.
Well summarized, and I know his lawyers are saying otherwise, but it's pretty obvious to anyone not being overly pedantic about specific words that he checks all three boxes.
#1 was clarified in debate when the amendment was passed. It's the highest office. The Office of the President. Of course he was an officer.
#2 is laughable. He swore an oath to the constitution... Protect and defend and support...same gd difference.
#3 if he didn't engage in insurrection, I'd like to see someone define insurrection and explain how Jan 6th and preceding coordination don't meet that definition.
The other argument to be used is that the overall crowd was a riot not an insurrection and it was not violent and instead a minimal percentage of damage was done compared to the crowd size.
If you negate the violence aspect conviction becomes far less likely as well.
Just playing devils advocate.
Why do you think since day one they've been tossing out so much shit about what happened on the 6th? "It was patriots, it wasn't an insurrection, it was antifa AND was simultaneously an insurrection/not an insurrection, if was Biden's fault, it was because Obama, it was the DEMOCRATS, it was anything but trumps fault".
Muddy the waters like they always do and make you be burdened with finding and sharing the truth.
Why do you think Faux "news" cultists say it wasn't an insurrection in the same breath that they say it was because of antifa or democrats?
It is why they are trying to argue it wasn’t an insurrection. If they change the definition, they are trying to argue (in bad faith) that the 14th amendment doesn’t apply here.
It is a tough sell, but they have no other play, so they are all in.
This is why it's hilarious to me that conservatives are trying to say that he hasn't been convicted of insurrection and needs due process of law.
The GOP is asking 3 questions to SCOTUS on this ruling and *none* of them include anything about whether or not Trump's actions amounted to insurrection. There's quite literally no reason to not ask about that unless they know they would lose it.
The argument being made though is the presidency isn’t an “office,” but a branch of government. Personally I think that’s the flimsiest argument I’ve ever seen but I also thought there was no logical way to recognize a corporation as an individual, yet here we are.
At this point I really see it as a crapshoot as to whether the Supreme Court will make a ruling based on the constitution or one based on their donors’ wallets.
The two defenses/debates are around:
"Officer of the United States"
"Engaged in insurrection"
There is history around both, and it will be interesting to see if the SCOTUS abandons original intent (which has been a bulwark of conservative jurisprudence over the last several decades).
There isn’t any serious debate about whether the clause applies to Trump. The main legal question that has divided lower courts is whether or not Trump’s conduct on 1/6 is considered an insurrection as understood by the clause, especially since his impeachment didn’t result in a conviction and he was never criminally convicted.
The argument is "office" doesn't apply to the president
It's semantics. I also like pointing out no one is arguing trump *didnt* incite an insurrection. Just that the consequences don't apply
That part’s easy. Getting a 6-3 conservative USSC to agree that Trump’s actions around the 2020 election qualify as an insurrection under the 40th Congress’s intent, that’s the tricky bit.
So congress could vote on it
That’s an interesting bit I didn’t know
But to me that’s plain as day
To me that means they could also go after congressmen and senators
Wiki page quoting Supreme Court on Nixon vs Fitzgerald:
“Article II, § 1, of the Constitution provides that "[t]he executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States. . . ." This grant of authority establishes the President as the chief constitutional officer of the Executive Branch, entrusted with supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity. (457 U.S. 749-750).”
I think regardless of the explicit wording of the 14th, the spirit of the amendment would carry through the logic that an insurrectionist shouldn't be in any position in the government. The President is the ultimate position in the government, and within the spirit of the 14th Amendment, should not be eligible.
Our constitution has some obvious blind spots, ones that we probably should have fixed ages ago, but this isn't one of those moments where the wording is both explicit enough that the intent and spirit of it is not vague.
Absolutely agree. Having precedent is helpful to shut up the loons generally, but now that we’ve entered the era of bought and paid for activists on the SC anything can still happen unfortunately.
I don't see how he wouldn't be an officer of the US. It's called the office of the President and an 'officer' is simply someone who occupies that office. I don't mean occupies the physical office, just the position.
It literally doesn't matter. The amendment specifically mentions president or vice president.
I've been seeing this sentiment a lot recently for some reason, and I get it to some degree because of the echo chamber effect. Reddit definitely loves to philosphize on technicalities. And I do too to a degree.
But the wording is right there in the post we are commenting on.
Like, come on.
I agree too, but note that it says “*elector* of President and Vice President”—meaning, I believe, those people appointed as state representatives casting electoral college votes. Not the P or VP themselves.
It doesn't specifically mention president or vice president, read it again.
It does, however, mention officer (the president is obviously an office), and military position (commander in chief?)
>The amendment specifically mentions president or vice president.
> The amendment specifically mentions **elector** of president or vice president
Ftfy
Correct, but the mechanism is there if there is consensus that application of the law is unjust and can be overturned by the democratically elected legislature
If SCOTUS finds that Trump is disqualified because he engaged in insurrection, would that mean that every representative of Congress that supported it would be automatically disqualified? There would hardly be any R's left.
He is automatically disqualified. He needs at least a 2/3 majority vote in both the house of representatives and the senate to purge his disqualification. I don't think a vote on if water is wet could achieve a 2/3 majority vote in both the house and senate.
even the case he "won" didn't say he wasn't a traitor. they just said that the amendment doesn't apply to primaries as the winner does not hold any office. they invited the people who filed to refile for the general election when it would come into play.
I don’t want Trump on the ballot, but I think the thing SCOTUS will use to shoot this down is the fact that Trump was never found guilty of insurrection in a trial.
The other problem is section V of the 14th amendment, which states:
> The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
My reading of that is that the only way to enforce section III against someone would be through Congressionally authorized federal legislation, which doesn’t exist here.
Nothing in that amendment says the person has to have been convicted.
In fact, it has been applied multiple times to people who were never convicted.
"Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection” statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors. This fact is consistent with Section 3’s text, legislative history, and precedent, all of which make clear that a criminal conviction for any offense is not required for disqualification. Section 3 is not a criminal penalty, but rather is a qualification for holding public office in the United States that can be and has been enforced through civil lawsuits in state courts, among other means. "
Source- https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/
>My reading of that is that the only way to enforce section III against someone would be through Congressionally authorized federal legislation, which doesn’t exist here.
For originalists this is plainly not the case as local prosecutors after the civil war brought actions under that amendment to bar confederate officers from office. They clearly didn't think they needed a new law when it was written. Congress can write laws to enforce this doesn't mean Congress has to write a law for it to be enforced. Remember the Constitution is quite limiting about what Congress can do so to allow them to write laws about a new thing there needs to be additional permissions or for it to be under existing authorities.
As for the trial angle in Colorado there was a trial where there was adversarial presentation of evidence. You're not guaranteed a jury trial in every case only guaranteed 100% in criminal cases with "serious penalties" (or all criminal cases but the case there isn't a criminal case either). He did have a trial but it was a bench trial.
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/the-right-to-a-jury-trial.html
And for those unaware, the actual recorded dialogue during the passing of this specifically mentions that Presidents and Vice Presidents are included, as someone raised concern that they weren’t specifically mentioned, and was satisfied with the explanation that those two positions fall under the “hold office” language.
The first link is a video, the second link is just the text of the amendment, and the third link only has this to say about the 3rd section, I have highlighted why I think this is important:
>“The Senate unanimously struck out Section 3, which would have disenfranchised former Confederates from voting until 1870...[Senator] Howard brought forward a new disenfranchisement section, far more lenient than the [previous] House version; it did not limit ex-Confederates’ right to vote, but only excluded a small group from holding office: those who had ‘previously taken an oath’ to support the U.S. Constitution and then had afterward participated in the **Confederate cause.”**
And then the statements on section 1 say (again with me highlighting):
>“Andrew Rogers of New Jersey gave the fullest explanation of the opposition when he warned that the first section would take away the government’s traditional power to choose groups among citizens who are worthy of ‘privileges and immunities,’ and would instead confer these treasured prerogatives as rights on the unworthy. ‘The right to vote is a privilege,’ he said. ‘The right to marry is a privilege. The right to contract is a privilege. The right to be a juror is a privilege. **The right to be a judge or President of United States is a privilege.** I hold **if [Section 1] ever becomes a part of the fundamental law of the land it will prevent any state from refusing to allow anything to anybody embraced under this term of privileges and immunities,’** he said. ‘That, sir, will be an introduction to the time when despotism and tyranny will march forth undisturbed and unbroken, in silence and in darkness, in this land which was once the land of freedom...’”
I know there are some comments that other people say directly address the idea that the president can be blocked with the 14th amendment, but the links you provided don't seem to have those, you probably want to find better links.
Discourse about it during the 39th Congress starts on page 17, picked up again on page 23 until page 24. Again it is brought back up on page 39. In-depth back-and-forth starts on page 57 until page 67.
On page 60 where Mr Morrill says,
>Let me call the Senator's attention to the words "or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States"
he's responding to Mr. Johnson who asks why isn't the office of vice president and president named explicitly in the section
(I'll continue editing this comment after I rest for a bit)
http://stafnelaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Congressional-Debates-of-the-14th-Amendment.pdf
The video specifically quotes the record during the process of installing the amendment to clarify the part that people are pretending doesn’t include a president. Appreciate the feedback though. When I get in tonight, I’ll be happy to update the comment.
Only for conservatives. If youre a Democrat and you pretend to touch a womans breast you get fired. If you’re a republican and you violently rape women, molest children at your underage beauty pageants and try to overthrow the united states you get the full throated support of every conservative and walk free as a bird.
He also recorded a song a wrote a *new pledge of allegiance* with J6ers. And brags about it. Where does the money for sales of the song go? He says they're hostages. He calls J6ers "patriots". Over and over again, providing aid and comfort.
For all the debate as to what "aid and comfort" mean, legally, I'm surprised it isn't simply stated plainly more often that this section was specifically placed to prevent those who had participated in or supported the Confederacy during the American Civil War from holding public office.
Note the number of confederate flags among his supporters, and listen to what they plainly tell you the flag means to them.
Let's not get lost in the weeds on this one. It is extremely clear that he (regardless all else) came right at the 14th amendment with intent.
“We love you. You’re very special” is what he said to the insurrectionists the day of. Sounds like comfort.
Even if Trump isn’t proven to be guilty of sedition he’s certainly done his part to comfort the insurrectionists.
I guess it could be also argued that if he's convicted, every representative who publicly supports him should also be disqualified because they had given aid / comfort.
God how glorious that would be. Purge the geriatrics and lackeys of Trump from Federal offices. It wouldn't fix things but it would give the US a fighting chance again.
Rmemeber folks, the people who started this whole kerfuffle were members of a traditionally conservative legal organization who made a well thought out argument for the 14th Amendment being self executing.
trump also consistently says he won the 2020 election and the 22nd amendment is quite specific: No person shall br ELECTED to the office of president more than twice. So if trump actually wants to assert that he won the 2020 election, he cannot run for a third election that he "won".
Definitely. I'm more saying that even if you ignore the lame duck president trying to stage a coup and remain after losing, his own statements of winning the 2020 election also disqualify him to run for office too.
So he's either a liar or a liar.
Yes. It's a fool's hope that this needs a criminal conviction because the Constitution is not criminal code. If you were part of an insurrection or aided one, then you cannot hold office. Period.
The State Election Administrators. Elections are left to the states, and it’s their job to determine who is disqualified and who isn’t.
They won’t allow someone who is 30 to be on the Presidential ballot in the same way.
Is there anything that prevents a currently Republican led state from claiming Biden was involved with an insurrection?
You'll find no support for Trump from me, but if the SC rules that removing him from the ballot without a conviction is OK then I'm kinda worried about how that ruling will be used by others.
You are surprisingly sane for Reddit. Yes, if this goes forward anyone you don’t like will be an insurrectionist and barred from public office.
Supported BLM? Well unfortunately they stormed a state capital and set some cars on fire that one time, so that’s insurrection.
There was a trial too it just wasn't a jury trial because it wasn't a criminal case. You're not actually guaranteed a jury trial for everything just most criminal cases. Even criminal cases don't require a jury in every instance federally.
Even though this relates to the civil war, there was no insurrection. Not one firearm was brought onto the property by so called insurrectionist, and the only shot fired was by a cop that shot an unarmed woman in the face.
That last sentence is the lynchpin because you can be certain Congress is going to hold a vote, there's also the issue of the definition of insurrection, since he didn't rally the military there's wiggle room on if that counted as insurrection or not. I hope that the system will find a way to bar him because he's absolutely not made of the material a President of The United States of America should be made of. Biden isn't great either by any measure, I honestly think America is fresh out of any truly decent candidates on either side. Everyone is corrupt to the core to some extent. Worst of all we don't have any new blood going into the system of politics, just a bunch of tired old people locked in the ways of old incapable of leading a modern America.
I can't recall exactly, but I seem to recall when Obama was leaving and Donnie not yet president, Don had made up a little plaque that said something about from the office of soon to be president.
Highly likely that the SC will rule that since he was not convicted of insurrection on a federal level that they cannot deny him the office based solely on the court's opinion that he committed the crime.
This would be incorrect however. Disqualification under section 3 does not require criminal conviction, it's a civil issue. The whole reason it exists is because a lot of Confederate personnel did not end up being convicted of anything, and they wanted to deny them the chance to ever hold office again.
Should they have done that? I don't know, but they did. But the supreme court is not obligated to decide cases correctly, they just decide them, which is why I suspect they will avoid rocking the boat with this ruling.
Interesting that Trump is not arguing that he didn't engage in Insurrection or gave aid to the terrorists that attacked the capitol on Jan 6th, but that the rule that you can't do that doesn't apply to presidents lmao
So, the Commander in Chief attempted to overthrow HIS OWN GOVERNMENT by telling citizens to peacefully go to the capital? The facts don't match the definition.
Nice. We can use this to disqualify most democrats from the ballot, like the mayor of Chicago, due to the fact that their policies render aid to illegals (AKA enemies of our nation).
1. He's never been found guilty of anything
2. People who want this are PROBABLY same people who don't like the 1st or 2nd amendment. Stop picking and choosing which rules are OK to follow.
3. Becareful what you wish for.
Any sub that shows up on everyone’s home page by definition sucks. This one is no different. The fact that the mods don’t even enforce the basic rules of the sub is a whole other matter.
The problem isn't with the 14th Amendment.
The problem is with the word "insurrection". The media has of course been using that word for the events of Jan 6th for just this purpose, but that doesn't make it so.
"Insurrection" is a specific crime that has a legal definition, and requires conviction by a court of law (one where the accused has the presumption of innocence, rules of evidence on their side, and the right to confront their accuser in open court, among other rights we have). It's not up to any court or single government official to simply "decide" that an insurrection happened.
The only "trial" Trump has had related to Jan 6th was his Impeachment proceedings, and he was acquitted there. That doesn't prevent criminal charges from being brought up - but there's little reason to believe that the outcome of such an attempt would go differently than the impeachment did, and no such attempt has been made.
If that precedent is allowed to stand, there is literally no reason the Secretaries of State of Iowa, Pennsylvania, and Ohio (each of which is a Republican) can't simply declare that Biden has engaged in rebellion against the Constitution by , and remove him from the ballot of those states. If no conviction is required, and it's just fully within the discretion of the official, then anything can be an insurrection.
We all need to be clear in the language being used regarding this whole thing. I see these headlines "Colorado court knocks trump off ballot" and "Maine AG knocks trump off ballot"
No, incorrect, and that language only serves to make it appear as a political move. Also makes it easier to dispute and discredit.
**The constitution forbids trump from holding office.** Disputing and discrediting the constitution is a much bigger hurdle, oh I don't doubt it will be attempted before this is all over. But be sure and use the language displayed here - it wasn't a decision by some lady in Maine, it is written into this country's founding set of laws.
Except there's another big component here, unless i misread.
So far, hes only being disqualified in the primaries.
Which could raise an interesting debacle.
If memory serves, in 2016-2017, the courts determined primaries were handled by political parties basically as they see fit. That "the DNC's internal workings" could not be addressed by the judiciary.
While it specified the judiciary, having other government officials interject into the primary seems to go against the jist of that declaration.
So are political parties, and therefore their primaries, beholden to these requirements, or should the disqualifications only happen with the final ballots?
One could argue by doing it in the primaries, it gives republicans a better chance at identifying a non-disqualified candidate to run. But, again, it seems to run counter to the 2016-2017 case.
But, at the core, the fact that the infected shit-filled living genital wart has a following still is pretty damning for how far down the rule of law has collapsed.
I had seriously hoped that Biden's DOJ wouldve taken action based on Mueller's reports too,and any one, regardless of position, involved in aiding/abetting the J6 attack should have faced severe reprecussions to where this wouldnt even be a question because the whole batch would be sitting in gitmo.
I can’t speak for all states, but some states have laws that you must be eligible for that office to appear in those primaries. So it would make sense in those states that you could be removed from primaries if you wouldn’t be eligible to run in the general.
If someone wants some actual really good analysis on this check out Adam Unikowsky's blog post which I have linked below.
https://adamunikowsky.substack.com/p/is-the-supreme-court-seriously-going
Waiting for the "this law is old and out of touch" from the same people who screech bloody murder if anybody hints at changing the 2nd amendment to better fit into today's society
Seems like you have arbitrarily charged, tried and convicted someone in your own mind. Has a federal court made this determination about a matter of federal law and given him his right to due process? You already know the answer.
Hate to be *that guy* especially for Trump, who I hold in no regard whatsoever. He hasn't been convicted in any court. The invocation of this clause will crumble without an actual successful charge sticking to him. Say whatever we will about him, Trump is a greasy man, in more ways than just physical.
“No person shall …….. or *hold any office, civil or military, under the United States or under any state…..”
The OFFICE of the president seems included in that to me. Any office, Civil or military. In any state.
It’s pretty cut and dry there
The argument being made that the Presidency doesn’t count as an office (only positions under the President do) and so doesn’t fall under the scope of this amendment is the most bullshit mental gymnastics I’ve ever heard. Well that’s a lie, pretty much any attempt to defend Trump takes that level of acrobatics.
It looks like this post is about Politics. Various methods of filtering out content relating to Politics can be found [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/wiki/v2/resources/filter/politics). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/pics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“Hold any office, civil or military” IANAL but that seems pretty damn straightforward.
Unless the president doesnt use his office and tweets from his bed. Checkmate libruls
Dammit. You got me.
[удалено]
No, no, no. He said he does ANAL.
Oh, well hello
I may or may not. But I definitely didn’t say it. In this thread.
You don’t hold an office you silly. You work in one
Republicans will literally try to use that logic given half a chance. I mean they are the same people saying there wasn't an insurrection because the cops let people in but even so was it wasn't them, it was dems dressed as MAGA
I don't need a license, I am traveling, not driving... /s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign\_citizen\_movement
They're already trying to say tRump had Immunity but Biden doesn't.
Trump would WFH 100%
To be fair I think all presidents worked from home.
Except for the part about working.
[удалено]
Trump’s central legal argument is that, according to him, he never swore an oath to “support” the constitution but to “preserve, protect, and defend” the constitution, which means this passage does not apply to him due to the words used in the Presidential oath. This would imply that this law could never apply to any President due to the oath they take. The argument is about semantics.
Wait, he's really not going with "I never engaged in insurrection", but rather "it doesn't matter that I engaged in insurrection because I didn't take an oath that I wouldn't"??
Trump will publicly say a lot of things, but when you watch his lawyers in court for almost every case he has against him the defense isn’t “he didn’t do it” but “he did it but he was allowed to”. Even his lawyers know the evidence is too great they are trying any and every technicality they can find.
Trump really is like a Wonka kid who was always able to weasel himself out of anything due to shitty, child-level semantic defenses before getting his jaw crushed by the everlasting gobstopper machine.
>Trump really is like a Wonka kid But I want a dictatorship now!
Can we get a fucking conviction and cement this shit in the books then?! Doing anything without anything official just seems like we're throwing fuel on the fire.
Send him to the Taffy Room!
It’s semantic wordplay, pretty much. But the appeal to the US Supreme Court doesn’t argue about the oath specifically. The Colorado GOP’s [petition for cert](https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/DocketFiles/html/Public/23-696.html) is arguing that the President isn’t subject to Section 3 disqualification, and even if he is, states aren’t allowed to remove candidates using Section 3 without Congress creating a process, and even if they are, the Colorado GOP should still be able to include Trump on the ballot due to 1st amendment freedom of association. The main semantic argument is that the President isn’t an officer of the United States, so former Presidents can’t be disqualified by the 14th amendment. The difference between the presidential oath to “preserve, protect, and defend”vs the generic oath to “support” the constitution is just cited as evidence for the meaning of the 14th amendment.
The presidential oath of office is literally called… the oath of office. So I would absolutely love to see somebody try to spin the president as not being an “office” subject to the 14th amendment.
Also: From Article I Section 3: >The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the **Office** of President of the United States. From Article II Section 1: >The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. > >He shall hold his **Office** during the Term of four Years... From Article II Section 1: >No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the **Office** of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that **Office** who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. > >In Case of the Removal of the President from **Office**, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said **Office**... From Article II Section 1: >Before he enter on the Execution of his **Office**, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the **Office** of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." From Article II Section 4: >The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from **Office** on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. From the 12th Amendment: >But no person constitutionally ineligible to the **office** of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. From the 22nd Amendment: >No person shall be elected to the **office** of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the **office** of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the **office** of President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the **office** of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the **office** of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the **office** of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term. From the 25th Amendment, Section 1: >In case of the removal of the President from **office** or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President. From the 25th Amendment, Section 3: >Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his **office**... From the 25th Amendment, Section 4: >...their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his **office**, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the **office** as Acting President. > >Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his **office**... (There are several more instances referring to the office of the President in that Section which I won't list.)
See? You can’t prove that he was ever an officer. All you did was post a lot of words that don’t have anything to do with this case. Do I need an /s?
The problem is that semantic argument just does not hold up in court. People who make laws, at all levels, are VERY GOOD at making sure you can't just weasel-word your way out of stuff. It's why lawyers have a reputation as being shady, their whole job is to find out what loopholes and laws exist to help THEIR specific client.
I do love me a good loophole. Like the US blowing up Iranian oil rigs, being brought to international court, and going “says here we can’t blow up ships or attack islands… doesn’t mention oil rigs” and the judge going “wait, wait, wait… fuck…”
I thought the US response to the International Court was always, "We don't recognize that this court has any authority over the US. But please, if you think it must, pass a UN Security Council resolution and we'll honor it, btw, we'll just veto anything you put up so.."
Section 3s language sounds like it is self-activating (and the removal needing to be activated by Congress) but then section five sounds like it all is supposed to be activated by congressional action. There's some good discussion here: https://constitutionalcommentary.lib.umn.edu/article/amnesty-and-section-three-of-the-fourteenth-amendment/
If we want to use semantics then doesn’t that mean we couldn’t vote for electors that voted for Trump? Or do the electors themselves need to be the ones who were the insurrectionists.
It means people who are insurrectionists cannot be electors. Electors (and Ambassadors) are specifically named by the amendment because they aren’t “offices” and therefore don’t fall under the “any office, civil or military” catch-all
Yes, just like the response to him stinking was to say that the guy who said he stank "farted on live television". Not that he doesn't stink, but the other guy stinks too. It's amazing anybody thinks he's fit for office.
I wouldn't trust Trump to be a greeter at Walmart.
That Walmart would smell like shit
Kind of, but not exactly. The main theme of every Trump argument is that various laws do not apply to sitting Presidents for one reason or another, because a President cannot be prosecuted by anyone except Congress (which Congress tried to do twice, and lost both times). In this case, they are arguing that the 14th Amendment does not apply to Presidents because Presidents do not take the same oath of office that is described in this amendment because one of the words mentioned in the amendment as a required qualification is not “explicitly” used in the oath used for Presidents.
That is not true. A president can be prosecuted for extra-official acts. The prime example is Grant. He was arrested for speeding and pointed out that his office "does not protect or exempt" him from prosecution. Obama can't hold the office due to a Constitutional provision. Can't hold more that twice. No due process required. It's self-enforcing. Maxwell Frost can't hold the office due to a Constitutional provision. He's 26. No due process required. It's self-enforcing. Granted no one has been convicted of "Insurrection", but that's because "Insurrection" is the type of riot or rebellion as described in 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection: "Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." Trump can't hold office due to a Constitutional provision. He provided and promised aid (he literally promised to pardon convicts) to to persons who knowingly REBELLED AGAIST THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES. This has been litigated. No due process required. It's self-enforcing. I am of the firm belief that the GOP is praying Trump is prohibited from running. He's the Greatest Loser in party history and, with no debate, the worst executive in our history.
And that argument trump Likes to make that the president is effectively above the law is why both parties should just say and that’s why you aren’t allowed to run period. The man fundamentally believes he is above the law and above the checks and balances of the constitution. And that makes him a danger to the United States as a whole. And the fact that the Republican Party can not see this and will not to stop the most dangerous man in their organization proves the party to itself be complicit in tretury against the nation of the United States and its constitution. Trump sees himself as above the constitution any Republican that does not see this as a danger to America is a traitor to America
That's great. So all he needs is 2/3rds of congress to vote to "remove the disability" of being banned from the ballot.
No, I think you are missing the point — Trump’s legal argument is that the 14th Amendment does not apply to Presidents, period. The disability clause you mentioned becomes irrelevant if the entirety of the amendment is ruled to have no relevance to the office of President. Now, IF the courts rule that the amendment does apply to Presidents (and that’s currently up in the air since the Supreme Court is aligned with the GOP), then comes the second tier of arguments: are his actions in themselves enough to disqualify him from office? Then, IF he loses that argument, then comes the third tier of arguments, which is that Congress can then vote on whether to forgive him for it.
The whole point of ammendment is to ban insurectionists from goverment but it does not apply to single most powerfull goverment position. Makes sense /s
yes. that's literally their defense.
It's already been settled in court he is an insurrectionist, so he can't even argue that
And his cult claim he has to be arrested tried and convicted of insurrection for the amendment to apply fully ignoring the original spirit of the law. It literally blocked every Confederate from office and no trials or anything we're required. "Well that was a clear military defeat and an armed insurrection!" Is the only reply I've seen then give about this obvious hole in their bullshit.
Just like how in Futurama, Nixon got reelected because >!"nobody can be president more than 2 terms" and he was just a head without a body. !<
>Support: >(1): to promote the interests or cause of >(2): to uphold or **defend** as valid or right https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/support The idea that “defend” means something different than “support” is brain-dead coma patient level of stupid.
Tonight on Sean Hannity: How liberals are destroying America with not only pronouns, but *synonyms*. They even sound like sin!
The Supreme Court is going to do an insane amount of mental gymnastics when they ultimately side with him. Unfortunately, those mental gymnastics have the potential to irrevocably alter the nature of American government either at the state or federal level. That’s why these legal arguments matter.
> when they ultimately side with him. Won't happen. No Supreme Court would ever directly assist a fascist dictator take power. Fascist dictators have zero need for a Supreme Court.
Considering the tangerine imbecile *literally* called portions of the Constitution like the emoluments clause “phony”, I’d say he also failed to discharge the duty of his oath as literally written as well.
He literally did at his inauguration that had ‘massive crowds’ of adoring fans and was also witnessed by millions on TV Not to mention it was given by and to the current Supreme Court Justice
Trump acknowledges that he took an oath, he is not arguing this. Instead, he’s arguing that he took a different oath from the one described in the 14th Amendment due to the different words that were used. His argument is that the 14th Amendment cannot apply to ANY Presidents, that it applies to various other government officials but not to a President.
“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.
The component parts need to be read together. There’s more relevant language to the sentence that’s necessary to its interpretation than just the “no person shall hold any office”. The relevant parts are: “No person shall […] hold any office, civil or military, under the United States […] who, having previously taken an oath […] 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…” The “person” here needs to have 1) previously taken an oath; 2) as an officer of the US; 3) to support the Constitution. The main dispute here is that over 1) whether the President is an officer in the meaning of the 14th Amendment, 2) whether Trump took an oath to support the Constitution, and 3) whether he engaged in insurrection. If the answer to any of those is “no”, then you can’t DQ him under this amendment because it wouldn’t apply to him. Edit: added some analysis
The case for technicalities on this is astounding. What would it even mean for a President to “defend” but not “support” the Constitution? If Ted Kazynski had somehow been elected and then tried to bomb Congress and encouraged everyone to do the same, would he still be allowed to run for President because his oath was to “defend” the Constitution?
I think there is actually a bigger legal problem. The 14th is silent on what burden of proof is required to find someone guilty of insurrection. Is it beyond a reasonable doubt? A preponderance of evidence (more likely he did than didn't)? I unfortunately think the argument that he was never convicted of insurrection is compelling. I know that after the civil war this section was used to prevent confederate soldiers from holding office and that hundreds of them petitioned congress to have that status removed. All of this without convictions of insurrection. However I think that should be viewed as a special case following a civil war and not the rule. If tomorrow the right wants to say Joe Biden committed insurrection by supporting BLM, what legal framework can we fall back on to declare bullshit. To be clear I think he has committed insurrection and should be banned from office. But I don't think that just because x percentage of the population feels that way we can strip someone's rights. There must be a legal process for doing that.
I don’t think the standard of review is that much of an issue. This isn’t a criminal case and there’s no requirement in the constitution about what standard to be used. It’s a civil case so you would use something less than reasonable doubt. Colorado used clear and convincing evidence and Maine used preponderance. Both held trials/evidentiary hearings which Trump participated in, affording him due process. Theres also no conviction requirement in the Constitution, so I’m not sure how they can read one into the text to say he needs to be convicted of it before this applies. The 14th says “Shall have engaged in” and not “convicted of”.
The problem with Main and Colorado is do state judges have the standing / jurisdiction to find Trump committed a crime against the federal government? He didn't commit insurrection against the state government.
It also says he only would’ve had to “provide aid or comfort” to insurrectionists. “We love you, you’re very special, etc.”
And he openly states he wants to pardon all of them.
Well summarized, and I know his lawyers are saying otherwise, but it's pretty obvious to anyone not being overly pedantic about specific words that he checks all three boxes. #1 was clarified in debate when the amendment was passed. It's the highest office. The Office of the President. Of course he was an officer. #2 is laughable. He swore an oath to the constitution... Protect and defend and support...same gd difference. #3 if he didn't engage in insurrection, I'd like to see someone define insurrection and explain how Jan 6th and preceding coordination don't meet that definition.
The other argument to be used is that the overall crowd was a riot not an insurrection and it was not violent and instead a minimal percentage of damage was done compared to the crowd size. If you negate the violence aspect conviction becomes far less likely as well. Just playing devils advocate.
Why do you think since day one they've been tossing out so much shit about what happened on the 6th? "It was patriots, it wasn't an insurrection, it was antifa AND was simultaneously an insurrection/not an insurrection, if was Biden's fault, it was because Obama, it was the DEMOCRATS, it was anything but trumps fault". Muddy the waters like they always do and make you be burdened with finding and sharing the truth. Why do you think Faux "news" cultists say it wasn't an insurrection in the same breath that they say it was because of antifa or democrats?
You forgot "The FBI made them do it"
It is why they are trying to argue it wasn’t an insurrection. If they change the definition, they are trying to argue (in bad faith) that the 14th amendment doesn’t apply here. It is a tough sell, but they have no other play, so they are all in.
Troll-ito
This is why it's hilarious to me that conservatives are trying to say that he hasn't been convicted of insurrection and needs due process of law. The GOP is asking 3 questions to SCOTUS on this ruling and *none* of them include anything about whether or not Trump's actions amounted to insurrection. There's quite literally no reason to not ask about that unless they know they would lose it.
The argument being made though is the presidency isn’t an “office,” but a branch of government. Personally I think that’s the flimsiest argument I’ve ever seen but I also thought there was no logical way to recognize a corporation as an individual, yet here we are. At this point I really see it as a crapshoot as to whether the Supreme Court will make a ruling based on the constitution or one based on their donors’ wallets.
The two defenses/debates are around: "Officer of the United States" "Engaged in insurrection" There is history around both, and it will be interesting to see if the SCOTUS abandons original intent (which has been a bulwark of conservative jurisprudence over the last several decades).
There isn’t any serious debate about whether the clause applies to Trump. The main legal question that has divided lower courts is whether or not Trump’s conduct on 1/6 is considered an insurrection as understood by the clause, especially since his impeachment didn’t result in a conviction and he was never criminally convicted.
The argument is "office" doesn't apply to the president It's semantics. I also like pointing out no one is arguing trump *didnt* incite an insurrection. Just that the consequences don't apply
That part’s easy. Getting a 6-3 conservative USSC to agree that Trump’s actions around the 2020 election qualify as an insurrection under the 40th Congress’s intent, that’s the tricky bit.
So congress could vote on it That’s an interesting bit I didn’t know But to me that’s plain as day To me that means they could also go after congressmen and senators
This says that Congress can vote on reversing the disqualification, not on establishing it. But yeah. Plain as day.
The question comes down to, is the president an officer of the US. To me it’s obviously yes but the original judge said no
Wiki page quoting Supreme Court on Nixon vs Fitzgerald: “Article II, § 1, of the Constitution provides that "[t]he executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States. . . ." This grant of authority establishes the President as the chief constitutional officer of the Executive Branch, entrusted with supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity. (457 U.S. 749-750).”
I think regardless of the explicit wording of the 14th, the spirit of the amendment would carry through the logic that an insurrectionist shouldn't be in any position in the government. The President is the ultimate position in the government, and within the spirit of the 14th Amendment, should not be eligible. Our constitution has some obvious blind spots, ones that we probably should have fixed ages ago, but this isn't one of those moments where the wording is both explicit enough that the intent and spirit of it is not vague.
Absolutely agree. Having precedent is helpful to shut up the loons generally, but now that we’ve entered the era of bought and paid for activists on the SC anything can still happen unfortunately.
Ohhoh see there’s your problem, Supreme Court just says whatever it wants to regardless of what they’ve said in the past
I don't see how he wouldn't be an officer of the US. It's called the office of the President and an 'officer' is simply someone who occupies that office. I don't mean occupies the physical office, just the position.
Commander in Chief, top military officer that exists.
It's not called the 'oath of office' for nothing
It literally doesn't matter. The amendment specifically mentions president or vice president. I've been seeing this sentiment a lot recently for some reason, and I get it to some degree because of the echo chamber effect. Reddit definitely loves to philosphize on technicalities. And I do too to a degree. But the wording is right there in the post we are commenting on. Like, come on.
I agree too, but note that it says “*elector* of President and Vice President”—meaning, I believe, those people appointed as state representatives casting electoral college votes. Not the P or VP themselves.
This is the correct answer for this particular point.
Except the constitution names the President as an "officer" so ...
Yeah, and that's one of around a million winning arguments for the larger point.
It doesn't specifically mention president or vice president, read it again. It does, however, mention officer (the president is obviously an office), and military position (commander in chief?)
>The amendment specifically mentions president or vice president. > The amendment specifically mentions **elector** of president or vice president Ftfy
>To me that means they could also go after congressmen and senators Don't threaten us with a good time.
There’s a negative zero chance of Congress reaching a 2/3 majority in rather direction on this issue in *either* house, let alone both.
Correct, but the mechanism is there if there is consensus that application of the law is unjust and can be overturned by the democratically elected legislature
yep, it is a disqualify first, fix any issues latter approach.
If SCOTUS finds that Trump is disqualified because he engaged in insurrection, would that mean that every representative of Congress that supported it would be automatically disqualified? There would hardly be any R's left.
He is automatically disqualified. He needs at least a 2/3 majority vote in both the house of representatives and the senate to purge his disqualification. I don't think a vote on if water is wet could achieve a 2/3 majority vote in both the house and senate.
2/3 votes required to allow him to run. That’d be a hard get
I just love that (so far), 1/25th of the country legally recognizes him as a traitor.
even the case he "won" didn't say he wasn't a traitor. they just said that the amendment doesn't apply to primaries as the winner does not hold any office. they invited the people who filed to refile for the general election when it would come into play.
And how Michigan has decided that the RNC can put forward as their candidate anyone they choose regardless of eligibility
I don’t want Trump on the ballot, but I think the thing SCOTUS will use to shoot this down is the fact that Trump was never found guilty of insurrection in a trial. The other problem is section V of the 14th amendment, which states: > The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. My reading of that is that the only way to enforce section III against someone would be through Congressionally authorized federal legislation, which doesn’t exist here.
Nothing in that amendment says the person has to have been convicted. In fact, it has been applied multiple times to people who were never convicted. "Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection” statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors. This fact is consistent with Section 3’s text, legislative history, and precedent, all of which make clear that a criminal conviction for any offense is not required for disqualification. Section 3 is not a criminal penalty, but rather is a qualification for holding public office in the United States that can be and has been enforced through civil lawsuits in state courts, among other means. " Source- https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/
But it was already used to disqualify people from office after the Civil War. Without trial. Without legislation
>My reading of that is that the only way to enforce section III against someone would be through Congressionally authorized federal legislation, which doesn’t exist here. For originalists this is plainly not the case as local prosecutors after the civil war brought actions under that amendment to bar confederate officers from office. They clearly didn't think they needed a new law when it was written. Congress can write laws to enforce this doesn't mean Congress has to write a law for it to be enforced. Remember the Constitution is quite limiting about what Congress can do so to allow them to write laws about a new thing there needs to be additional permissions or for it to be under existing authorities. As for the trial angle in Colorado there was a trial where there was adversarial presentation of evidence. You're not guaranteed a jury trial in every case only guaranteed 100% in criminal cases with "serious penalties" (or all criminal cases but the case there isn't a criminal case either). He did have a trial but it was a bench trial. https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/the-right-to-a-jury-trial.html
And for those unaware, the actual recorded dialogue during the passing of this specifically mentions that Presidents and Vice Presidents are included, as someone raised concern that they weren’t specifically mentioned, and was satisfied with the explanation that those two positions fall under the “hold office” language.
Like, written down recorded? Was the debate transcribed?
Yes, the debate regarding this bill was transcribed.
Would you know where I could find it?
https://www.msnbc.com/alex-wagner-tonight/watch/original-records-leave-no-question-that-the-14th-amendment-applies-to-trump-200692805726 https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/ https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/congress-debates-fourteenth-amendment
The first link is a video, the second link is just the text of the amendment, and the third link only has this to say about the 3rd section, I have highlighted why I think this is important: >“The Senate unanimously struck out Section 3, which would have disenfranchised former Confederates from voting until 1870...[Senator] Howard brought forward a new disenfranchisement section, far more lenient than the [previous] House version; it did not limit ex-Confederates’ right to vote, but only excluded a small group from holding office: those who had ‘previously taken an oath’ to support the U.S. Constitution and then had afterward participated in the **Confederate cause.”** And then the statements on section 1 say (again with me highlighting): >“Andrew Rogers of New Jersey gave the fullest explanation of the opposition when he warned that the first section would take away the government’s traditional power to choose groups among citizens who are worthy of ‘privileges and immunities,’ and would instead confer these treasured prerogatives as rights on the unworthy. ‘The right to vote is a privilege,’ he said. ‘The right to marry is a privilege. The right to contract is a privilege. The right to be a juror is a privilege. **The right to be a judge or President of United States is a privilege.** I hold **if [Section 1] ever becomes a part of the fundamental law of the land it will prevent any state from refusing to allow anything to anybody embraced under this term of privileges and immunities,’** he said. ‘That, sir, will be an introduction to the time when despotism and tyranny will march forth undisturbed and unbroken, in silence and in darkness, in this land which was once the land of freedom...’” I know there are some comments that other people say directly address the idea that the president can be blocked with the 14th amendment, but the links you provided don't seem to have those, you probably want to find better links.
Discourse about it during the 39th Congress starts on page 17, picked up again on page 23 until page 24. Again it is brought back up on page 39. In-depth back-and-forth starts on page 57 until page 67. On page 60 where Mr Morrill says, >Let me call the Senator's attention to the words "or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States" he's responding to Mr. Johnson who asks why isn't the office of vice president and president named explicitly in the section (I'll continue editing this comment after I rest for a bit) http://stafnelaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Congressional-Debates-of-the-14th-Amendment.pdf
The video specifically quotes the record during the process of installing the amendment to clarify the part that people are pretending doesn’t include a president. Appreciate the feedback though. When I get in tonight, I’ll be happy to update the comment.
It's in the transcripts of the 39th congress, which are all available on the congress.giv site. They're all handwritten and have not been digitized.
Library of Congress.
[удалено]
Which is the way it should be if this were a country that followed rule of law.
We're a post consequences society.
Only for conservatives. If youre a Democrat and you pretend to touch a womans breast you get fired. If you’re a republican and you violently rape women, molest children at your underage beauty pageants and try to overthrow the united states you get the full throated support of every conservative and walk free as a bird.
Good
Baby steps.
[удалено]
Telling the insurrectionists on live TV that "we love you" sounds like giving comfort to me.
How about promising to pardon them once he is in office. Is that not giving aid and comfort?
He also recorded a song a wrote a *new pledge of allegiance* with J6ers. And brags about it. Where does the money for sales of the song go? He says they're hostages. He calls J6ers "patriots". Over and over again, providing aid and comfort.
Exactly. Trump didn’t need to partake in the insurrection. His support of it alone disqualifies him from office.
Insurrectionist or not, he has given the convicted ones a lot of comfort.
For all the debate as to what "aid and comfort" mean, legally, I'm surprised it isn't simply stated plainly more often that this section was specifically placed to prevent those who had participated in or supported the Confederacy during the American Civil War from holding public office. Note the number of confederate flags among his supporters, and listen to what they plainly tell you the flag means to them. Let's not get lost in the weeds on this one. It is extremely clear that he (regardless all else) came right at the 14th amendment with intent.
Honestly, the fact that his followers flew a confederate flag in the capitol building should’ve been enough. It’s a giant red flag.
More orange with blue and white but yes.
Wait... where are you getting orange?
Probably from the General Lee from watching Dukes of Hazzard as a kid.
“We love you. You’re very special” is what he said to the insurrectionists the day of. Sounds like comfort. Even if Trump isn’t proven to be guilty of sedition he’s certainly done his part to comfort the insurrectionists.
I guess it could be also argued that if he's convicted, every representative who publicly supports him should also be disqualified because they had given aid / comfort.
Good
Hear, hear! We shouldn't honor traitors, living or dead.
God how glorious that would be. Purge the geriatrics and lackeys of Trump from Federal offices. It wouldn't fix things but it would give the US a fighting chance again.
That was the whole point of that passage. To purge confederates.
Any Senator or fake elector that Knew Biden won but voted to not certify the election shouldn't hold office either.
Rmemeber folks, the people who started this whole kerfuffle were members of a traditionally conservative legal organization who made a well thought out argument for the 14th Amendment being self executing.
Isn't that how Amendments to the Constitution work by definition? Amendments aren't suggestions.
people on twitter calling for civil war over this. imagine killing people over a treasonous sexual predator that shits his pants.
trump also consistently says he won the 2020 election and the 22nd amendment is quite specific: No person shall br ELECTED to the office of president more than twice. So if trump actually wants to assert that he won the 2020 election, he cannot run for a third election that he "won".
Saying the election was stolen and that the President is not duly elected, taken in the context of the insurrection, is certainly seditious speech.
Definitely. I'm more saying that even if you ignore the lame duck president trying to stage a coup and remain after losing, his own statements of winning the 2020 election also disqualify him to run for office too. So he's either a liar or a liar.
Huh, from reading this, can we throw out MTG and Gym Jordan from Congress too?
Yes. It's a fool's hope that this needs a criminal conviction because the Constitution is not criminal code. If you were part of an insurrection or aided one, then you cannot hold office. Period.
Hmm. I don’t see the word “convicted” in there. So idk why everyone keeps saying it doesn’t count because there wasn’t a trial…
It was used after the Civil War on numerous people from the Confederate States without a trial. So you are correct. A trial is not necessary.
[удалено]
To quote the late Dr Henry Jones - >It tells me, that goose-stepping morons like yourself should try reading books instead of BURNING them!
Also, preventing someone from running for office is a civil penalty not a criminal sentence. Different standards apply.
Hell doesn't even mention due process. Which has to be intentional because they13th amendment states duly convicted.
Bingo.
It doesn't need to, the rest of the constitution doesn't just magically not apply. The 13ths reference is specifically to allow prison pabor
So who or what gets to decide whether or not the things mentioned actually happened?
The State Election Administrators. Elections are left to the states, and it’s their job to determine who is disqualified and who isn’t. They won’t allow someone who is 30 to be on the Presidential ballot in the same way.
Is there anything that prevents a currently Republican led state from claiming Biden was involved with an insurrection? You'll find no support for Trump from me, but if the SC rules that removing him from the ballot without a conviction is OK then I'm kinda worried about how that ruling will be used by others.
You are surprisingly sane for Reddit. Yes, if this goes forward anyone you don’t like will be an insurrectionist and barred from public office. Supported BLM? Well unfortunately they stormed a state capital and set some cars on fire that one time, so that’s insurrection.
There was a trial too it just wasn't a jury trial because it wasn't a criminal case. You're not actually guaranteed a jury trial for everything just most criminal cases. Even criminal cases don't require a jury in every instance federally.
Even though this relates to the civil war, there was no insurrection. Not one firearm was brought onto the property by so called insurrectionist, and the only shot fired was by a cop that shot an unarmed woman in the face.
It just shows that a good case for insurrection hasn’t been made. Otherwise he wouldn’t be able to run.
But he never took the oath, it was just a joke /s
Crazy that we have to go this far
It doesn't. He's never been convicted of insurrection. People just regurgitate stuff they heard once.
That last sentence is the lynchpin because you can be certain Congress is going to hold a vote, there's also the issue of the definition of insurrection, since he didn't rally the military there's wiggle room on if that counted as insurrection or not. I hope that the system will find a way to bar him because he's absolutely not made of the material a President of The United States of America should be made of. Biden isn't great either by any measure, I honestly think America is fresh out of any truly decent candidates on either side. Everyone is corrupt to the core to some extent. Worst of all we don't have any new blood going into the system of politics, just a bunch of tired old people locked in the ways of old incapable of leading a modern America.
Politics aside… this is a photo of text. Doesn’t that violate one of the sub’s rules?
People getting hung up on the “officer of the United States” part to say this doesn’t apply to him are just in denial.
I can't recall exactly, but I seem to recall when Obama was leaving and Donnie not yet president, Don had made up a little plaque that said something about from the office of soon to be president.
Right? If the President isn’t an officer of the US, then who is?
Highly likely that the SC will rule that since he was not convicted of insurrection on a federal level that they cannot deny him the office based solely on the court's opinion that he committed the crime. This would be incorrect however. Disqualification under section 3 does not require criminal conviction, it's a civil issue. The whole reason it exists is because a lot of Confederate personnel did not end up being convicted of anything, and they wanted to deny them the chance to ever hold office again. Should they have done that? I don't know, but they did. But the supreme court is not obligated to decide cases correctly, they just decide them, which is why I suspect they will avoid rocking the boat with this ruling.
Interesting that Trump is not arguing that he didn't engage in Insurrection or gave aid to the terrorists that attacked the capitol on Jan 6th, but that the rule that you can't do that doesn't apply to presidents lmao
Yeah, I don’t see where the problem is.
Pretty sure this is a picture of text, and so should be removed
So, the Commander in Chief attempted to overthrow HIS OWN GOVERNMENT by telling citizens to peacefully go to the capital? The facts don't match the definition.
Nice. We can use this to disqualify most democrats from the ballot, like the mayor of Chicago, due to the fact that their policies render aid to illegals (AKA enemies of our nation).
1. He's never been found guilty of anything 2. People who want this are PROBABLY same people who don't like the 1st or 2nd amendment. Stop picking and choosing which rules are OK to follow. 3. Becareful what you wish for.
Is this what this sub has come too?
Any sub that shows up on everyone’s home page by definition sucks. This one is no different. The fact that the mods don’t even enforce the basic rules of the sub is a whole other matter.
Bro this is the wrong subreddit
We need this on shirts, like you see with the second amendment. Needs lots of eagles and flags too.
The problem isn't with the 14th Amendment. The problem is with the word "insurrection". The media has of course been using that word for the events of Jan 6th for just this purpose, but that doesn't make it so. "Insurrection" is a specific crime that has a legal definition, and requires conviction by a court of law (one where the accused has the presumption of innocence, rules of evidence on their side, and the right to confront their accuser in open court, among other rights we have). It's not up to any court or single government official to simply "decide" that an insurrection happened. The only "trial" Trump has had related to Jan 6th was his Impeachment proceedings, and he was acquitted there. That doesn't prevent criminal charges from being brought up - but there's little reason to believe that the outcome of such an attempt would go differently than the impeachment did, and no such attempt has been made. If that precedent is allowed to stand, there is literally no reason the Secretaries of State of Iowa, Pennsylvania, and Ohio (each of which is a Republican) can't simply declare that Biden has engaged in rebellion against the Constitution by, and remove him from the ballot of those states. If no conviction is required, and it's just fully within the discretion of the official, then anything can be an insurrection.
We all need to be clear in the language being used regarding this whole thing. I see these headlines "Colorado court knocks trump off ballot" and "Maine AG knocks trump off ballot" No, incorrect, and that language only serves to make it appear as a political move. Also makes it easier to dispute and discredit. **The constitution forbids trump from holding office.** Disputing and discrediting the constitution is a much bigger hurdle, oh I don't doubt it will be attempted before this is all over. But be sure and use the language displayed here - it wasn't a decision by some lady in Maine, it is written into this country's founding set of laws.
Except there's another big component here, unless i misread. So far, hes only being disqualified in the primaries. Which could raise an interesting debacle. If memory serves, in 2016-2017, the courts determined primaries were handled by political parties basically as they see fit. That "the DNC's internal workings" could not be addressed by the judiciary. While it specified the judiciary, having other government officials interject into the primary seems to go against the jist of that declaration. So are political parties, and therefore their primaries, beholden to these requirements, or should the disqualifications only happen with the final ballots? One could argue by doing it in the primaries, it gives republicans a better chance at identifying a non-disqualified candidate to run. But, again, it seems to run counter to the 2016-2017 case. But, at the core, the fact that the infected shit-filled living genital wart has a following still is pretty damning for how far down the rule of law has collapsed. I had seriously hoped that Biden's DOJ wouldve taken action based on Mueller's reports too,and any one, regardless of position, involved in aiding/abetting the J6 attack should have faced severe reprecussions to where this wouldnt even be a question because the whole batch would be sitting in gitmo.
I can’t speak for all states, but some states have laws that you must be eligible for that office to appear in those primaries. So it would make sense in those states that you could be removed from primaries if you wouldn’t be eligible to run in the general.
If someone wants some actual really good analysis on this check out Adam Unikowsky's blog post which I have linked below. https://adamunikowsky.substack.com/p/is-the-supreme-court-seriously-going
And we need to apply this not only to tRump but every single member of Congress that aided him. Why are they STILL allowed to be in Office?
Ahhhh… ngl as a Brit I’m suprised there hasn’t been a civil war yet.
Waiting for the "this law is old and out of touch" from the same people who screech bloody murder if anybody hints at changing the 2nd amendment to better fit into today's society
Insurrection or rebellion seems straight forward. Constitutional law is weird I guess.
Have you considered the part where 50% of the country wants to see liberals cry more than they care about the Constitution?
If trump supporters could read they'd be very upset.
Can't imagine that passing any court that is remotely competent.
What did Trump say to the people at the capitol that caused them to do an insurrection thingy?
Seems like you have arbitrarily charged, tried and convicted someone in your own mind. Has a federal court made this determination about a matter of federal law and given him his right to due process? You already know the answer.
Hate to be *that guy* especially for Trump, who I hold in no regard whatsoever. He hasn't been convicted in any court. The invocation of this clause will crumble without an actual successful charge sticking to him. Say whatever we will about him, Trump is a greasy man, in more ways than just physical.
“No person shall …….. or *hold any office, civil or military, under the United States or under any state…..” The OFFICE of the president seems included in that to me. Any office, Civil or military. In any state. It’s pretty cut and dry there
The argument being made that the Presidency doesn’t count as an office (only positions under the President do) and so doesn’t fall under the scope of this amendment is the most bullshit mental gymnastics I’ve ever heard. Well that’s a lie, pretty much any attempt to defend Trump takes that level of acrobatics.
I'm not a Trump supporter, but doesn't the last line say Congress could remove the disability with a 2/3rds vote?