Donald Trump is NOT eligible to run for President. Period.

[CousinIT]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/framers-14th-amendments-disqualification-clause-analysis/story?id=105996364

NOTE TO MODERATORS: most of the following text is from the public US Congressional record in 1866, not a media-paid or copyrighted writer or author. I'm asking that the 4-paragraph limit be waived in this instance.

Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, who led the Republicans in debate, insisted that it wouldn't be enough to deprive the former confederates of their right to vote in federal elections -- he wanted them banished from government service altogether.

"I should prefer a clause prohibiting all persons who have participated in the rebellion, and who were over twenty-five years of age at the breaking out of the rebellion, from all participation in offices, either Federal or State, throughout the United States," Howard said on the Senate floor on May 23, 1866. "I think such a provision would be a benefit to the nation."

After about a week of discussions with colleagues, Howard offered the Sec. 3 language that was ultimately ratified. Howard's revision removed specific references to "the" rebellion and added an important qualifier: those who were to be excluded from government service would have to have violated prior oaths to defend the constitution by having "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against it or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

In 2024, the originalists on the Supreme Court will likely seek to determine whether the ratifiers could have had it in mind 158 years ago that Sec. 3 might not only be applied to the "late insurrection," as the House-passed version originally had it, but also to any other rebellion that might later take place.

But originalists might take note of what Sen. Peter Van Winkle of West Virginia said as he sought to have the threshold for congressional amnesty in Howard's version lowered to a simple majority, rather than two-thirds.

"This is to go into our Constitution and to stand to govern future insurrection as well as the present; and I should like to have that point definitely understood," Van Winkle said at the time.

It's also worth noting that there was just a single reference in the Senate debate to the fact that the president and vice president were not explicitly mentioned in Howard's draft as "officer(s) of the United States," the way members of Congress and state officials had been itemized in the text. Would the disqualification clause of the amendment not cover the top posts in the executive branch?

"Why did you omit to exclude them?" asked Maryland Democratic Sen. Reverdy Johnson.

Maine's Lot Morrill jumped in to clarify.

"Let me call the Senator's attention to the words 'or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States,'" Morrill said, ending the discussion on that point.

[Botany]

1. The 14th amendment and article 12 makes it clear

Trump broke his oath to America and the Constitution and he can never run again.

[onecaliberal]

2. Agree. He disqualified himself by trying to rip off a free and fair election.

There was a multifaceted plan to remain in power. There truly is a vast right wing conspiracy.

[vapor2]

4. AND he wants to do it again!!

[nuxvomica]

3. Webster's 1828 definition of "insurrection"

The following definition is from the 1828 Webster's dictionary. It was unchanged as late as 1841 so it was likely still in use at the time of writing the 14th Amendment. A notable difference from the modern definition is that it's pretty specific about "open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of a law" which was precisely the immediate goal of the J6 insurrection.

INSURREC'TION, noun [Latin insurgo; in and surgo, to rise.]

1. A rising against civil or political authority; the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of a law in a city or state. It is equivalent to sedition, except that sedition expresses a less extensive rising of citizens. It differs from rebellion, for the latter expresses a revolt, or an attempt to overthrow the government, to establish a different one or to place the country under another jurisdiction. It differs from mutiny, as it respects the civil or political government; whereas a mutiny is an open opposition to law in the army or navy. insurrection is however used with such latitude as to comprehend either sedition or rebellion.

https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Insurrection

[malaise]

5. Great OP

Rec

[AKwannabe]

6. K&R

[Hiawatha Pete]

7. K&R

[sarchasm]

8. KnR

[love_katz]

9. Huge kick and recommend.

Kicking for visibility.

[Takket]

10. I know SCOTUS is going to dismiss this, because they suck, but it is clear drumpf is disqualified

"In 2024, the originalists on the Supreme Court will likely seek to determine whether the ratifiers could have had it in mind 158 years ago that Sec. 3 might not only be applied to the "late insurrection," as the House-passed version originally had it, but also to any other rebellion that might later take place."

That's nonsense, but something I can see this SCOTUS doing. you cannot apply it to a specific event unless a specific event is mentioned. The 14th uses generic language. It just says "rebellion or insurrection." It does not say "The Civil War". Of course they meant it to apply to ANY insurrection. The article even calls out that they said "late insurrection" in the original House version but the was REMOVED which was obviously done FOR A REASON, and that reason is clearly to allow the 14th to apply to ANY insurrection.

It also appears that the whole "president is not an officer" bullshit was also called out specifically in the original debate. So toss that in the trash too.

[Smackdown2019]

12. Not so easy

The question is not if he is an Insurrectist the High Court will have the case brought before it, its the question if he is an officer. The courts found him to be an Insurrectist, the determination is dead after that, unless the case of argument had flawed information that swayed the verdict; in this case information is out there from all fronts and isn't flawed.

The argument the high court must determine is the Office of the Presidency is an Officer of the United States.

LMAO. Kinda like asking the court if there is a King in this Kingdom.......

[gristy]

17. Yes. Both Takket and the OP address this point.

Takket:

It also appears that the whole "president is not an officer" bullshit was also called out specifically in the original debate. So toss that in the trash too.

OP:

It's also worth noting that there was just a single reference in the Senate debate to the fact that the president and vice president were not explicitly mentioned in Howard's draft as "officer(s) of the United States," the way members of Congress and state officials had been itemized in the text. Would the disqualification clause of the amendment not cover the top posts in the executive branch?

"Why did you omit to exclude them?" asked Maryland Democratic Sen. Reverdy Johnson.

Maine's Lot Morrill jumped in to clarify.

"Let me call the Senator's attention to the words 'or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States,'" Morrill said, ending the discussion on that point.

[CousinIT]

22. The framers addressed that as I understand it (?) "Officers" does not exclude POTUS or VP...

It's also worth noting that there was just a single reference in the Senate debate to the fact that the president and vice president were not explicitly mentioned in Howard's draft as "officer(s) of the United States," the way members of Congress and state officials had been itemized in the text. Would the disqualification clause of the amendment not cover the top posts in the executive branch?

"Why did you omit to exclude them?" asked Maryland Democratic Sen. Reverdy Johnson.

Maine's Lot Morrill jumped in to clarify.

"Let me call the Senator's attention to the words 'or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States,'" Morrill said, ending the discussion on that point.

[malaise]

13. The Slobfather is going doen

Take that to the bank

[calimary]

11. K&R! On continuous repeat!

[ArkansasDemocrat1]

14. K&R

R

[cutroot]

15. The Constitution says participate in an insurrection. Not convicted of

He clearly participated

[CousinIT]

23. Exactly. I see nothing about "convicted" in any of it.

It only says “participated” - which he did - because he incited the damn thing.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

16. Jamie Raskin Says Trump Is Disqualified From Ever Holding Office Again

Even if TFG was on the ballot, TFG would still be disqualified from serving as POTUS

Link to tweet

https://bipartisanreport.com/2023/12/31/jamie-raskin-says-trump-is-disqualified-from-ever-holding-office-again/

In a new interview with CNN, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) — currently the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee — proclaimed former President Donald Trump to be clearly disqualified from holding public office in the future.

Raskin based his remarks on the now often cited provisions of the national Constitution’s 14th Amendment that block individuals who reneged on an oath of office via engaging in insurrection from later returning to various positions of governmental power. The connection made to Trump is the violence of January 6, 2021, which figures from Colorado Judge Sarah Wallace to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution team going after Trump at the federal Justice Department have held to be essentially the doing of the former president. He’s tentatively on track to be blocked from ballots in two states already, though the Colorado ruling establishing as much was put on hold for now.

“This becomes a test for the originalists and the textualists on the Supreme Court,” Raskin said, discussing the expected arrival of disputes over Trump appearing on the ballot at the Supreme Court. “And I think all of the Justices from Left to Right call themselves textualists and originalists. The language of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is very clear. It says if you’ve sworn an oath to support the Constitution and then violated the oath by engaging in insurrection or rebellion, you can never hold public office again.” Raskin then argued that the historical record of the formulation of the 14th Amendment establishes a clear intent outlined by that language, since the original proposal was narrowed.

Trump “has disqualified himself,” Raskin summarized.

[ShazzieB]

18. Agree 1000%, with the op and with Jamie!

I'm not making any bets as to what SCOTUS will do, but I take comfort in the fact that they have done him ZERO favors with all his appeals to date. I keep remembering how many times they've declined to hear Trump-relared cases in the past, thereby letting a previous court's ruling stand.

This case is so controversial that it's practically radioactive, and they might want to avoid getting burned.

[CaptainTruth]

19. I still say "running" & "holding office" are two different things.

The OP text refers to "participation in offices" & Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says, in part, "No person shall... hold any office...".
Clearly, to me anyway, those are about holding office. I don't see them mention running for office anywhere.

"Running for office" involves things like making statements, making speeches, making signs, making personal appearances in various places, etc, all of which are clearly, to me anyway, 1st Amendment protected activities.

To me it seems like it's a case of "you can run, make speeches, give statements, print signs, the 1st Amendment guarantees your right to do those things, but it doesn't guarantee your right/eligibility to hold office, that's a different matter."

[triron]

20. Perhaps but practically it's fraught with problems

To apply that way. I've never heard of a foreign born or under an age candidate.

[area51]

60. I know of 3 foreign born candidates,

Cruz, Romney & McCain, so it seems this part doesn't matter, at least if you're a member of the republinazi party.

[dpibel]

50. Qualification for office is the issue

Colorado and Maine have made the determination that Trump cannot be on their ballots because their state law (which unquestionably governs the conduct of elections) says that only people who are qualified to hold office can appear on ballots.

Your First Amendment argument is inapposite.

Any 22-year-old can engage in all the 1st Amendment protected activities you list insisting to all the world they should be elected president.

But they can't serve.

And states have the clear, established, unequivocal right to keep 22-year-olds off the presidential ballot.

The question here is not "can Trump run?" It is "Is Trump disqualified from serving as president under Article 3 of the 14th Amendment?"

I'm pretty confident that no court is going to rule that being on a ballot is a First Amendment Right.

[Frasier Balzov]

54. The right to ballot access is the mirror image of the right to vote.

The jurisprudence seems pretty unequivocal about that.

As long as the Prescribed qualifications are met.

And as long as some Proscribed conduct hasn't cut off the right.

So I've been trying to keep in mind how easy or difficult it is for someone to lose their right to vote.

That is the weighty burden of denying ballot access.

Because the other principle which runs throughout the cases is that the People must be trusted to use the ballot to elect and defeat candidates.

[WarGamer]

21. Here's the problem. There's no legal finding of participating in an insurrection.

SCOTUS will probably 9-0 trash the Colorado thing.

Imagine if this was allowed...

Any State could disqualify Biden or any future Dem based on accusations of Insurrection.

Needs to be a LEGAL FINDING of guilt.

Just wait for the majority opinion, you;ll see.

[CousinIT]

24. No legal finding or conviction. But the entire nation saw it, heard him incite it.

Biden has never incited such. Trump has. That much is proven, conviction or none.

It’s like rape - if there’s video of it and it was seen and heard as it happened, perp is guilty.

[Zeitghost]

25. Last I knew

Video of a crime was not enough to declare guilt, at least not by the government. A trial is still needed.

[CousinIT]

26. I can't remember the reasons Jack Smith didn't charge insurrection....

…and without that….

[Stargleamer]

29. i don't see why a criminal trial is needed

if a Colorado judge did find he "engaged in insurrection": "Trump engaged in insurrection by inciting his supporters to violence. . ." https://www.reuters.com/legal/colorado-supreme-court-disqualifies-trump-holding-office-filing-2023-12-19/

This judge heard both sides of the case, the plaintiff's and Trump's attorneys, and made such a determination

[WarGamer]

30. Just one lower court judge?

Then watch out for lower court judges in Texas and Alabama.

[Stargleamer]

33. It's hard to see what rationale they would use

to disqualify Biden, as he has not "engaged in insurrection" is over 35, a US citizen, etc., etc.

If they say "but there's a flood of migrants coming across the border, therefore he's violated his oath of office" then they would have to show how asylum seekers violate his oath of office. There were undocumented migrants and asylum seekers crossing the border when the POS was president too.

[WarGamer]

38. You're making my point for me...

If you simply allow one Judge or a 3 judge panel... to make the call then there's no need for judicial review or justification.

You're literally inviting some Judge from "Burning Cross County, Alabama" to find Biden participated in insurrection by putting ketchup on a corn dog instead of mustard. Once the Judge makes the judgement, what's the recourse?

Frankly I wouldn't even trust a State Court conviction to keep a candidate off a ballot... For something this important I'd say a Federal conviction is necessary.

SCOTUS is going to flush this 9-0 IMHO...

[Stargleamer]

42. The Colorado Supreme Court did review the lower court's decision

and their decision will be further reviewed by the USSC. So there is recourse, and you answered your own question too.

Finding that someone participated in insurrection isn't as easy as you make it out to be for a number of reasons.

And you're right, the USSC will overturn this decision, but not by 9-0 IMHO.

[dpibel]

34. Affirmed by the CO Supremes

You are not alone in your devotion to the slippery slope treatment of this question.

But, no. At this point, it's not "Just one lower court judge." It is a lower court judge whose findings have been affirmed by the CO Supreme Court.

The Maine decision is going to be reviewed by a trial court and, doubtless, then by courts of appeal.

So your notion that any red-state judge will be able to do in Biden means that you believe that a trial court judge will make a finding based on nothing at all and will be affirmed at all higher levels.

Your slippery slope argument is, in fact, a statement that you believe the US no longer operates under the rule of law.

Think about this: How many election cases did Trump and his minions win? The number is one, and that was a win that made no difference to anything. And not all of those cases were in deep blue states, were they?

The idea that some rogue judge or official throws somebody off the ticket and that's the end of it is patent nonsense. The CO decision has already been through one level of review, and it's on its way to the Big Supremes.

Why do you believe that any fraudulent case brought against Biden (or some future president) would not be subject to just as much review?

[WarGamer]

40. Good points...

I think a starting point might be a conviction in a Federal Court of an insurrection charge.

That just might be what SCOTUS comes up with.

Like I wrote above, I don't trust that the process wouldn't be abused.

[W_HAMILTON]

56. So, if Trump's insurrection had succeeded, we would have needed his DOJ to prosecute him...

...in order to determine that he engaged in an insurrection?

Yeah, good luck with that.

[Zeitghost]

46. As I asked in another post

If the 14th Amendment prohibited murderers from holding office, would OJ be allowed to run?

[Stargleamer]

28. A Colorado judge did find. . .

"Trump engaged in insurrection by inciting his supporters to violence. . . " https://www.reuters.com/legal/colorado-supreme-court-disqualifies-trump-holding-office-filing-2023-12-19/

This seems like a LEGAL FINDING to me.

[TexasDem69]

32. Sure, it's a finding by a single state court judge

Does a judge in Alabama or New York have to agree?

[Stargleamer]

35. No they don't

but the lower court's finding of engagement in insurrection was not found to be problematic by the Colorado Supreme Court, and in addition the Colorado plaintiff's case put forth was/is pretty compelling.

[TexasDem69]

36. The problem is it's a state court interpreting the Constitution

And I don’t think that has any effect on other states or even federal courts. And wasn’t the Colorado Supreme Court ruling a 4-3 or a similar mixed decision? That suggests even those 7 justices in a single state court didn’t agree with the lower court. There are thousands of judges across the country who can disagree

[Stargleamer]

47. Well I agree that other states might very well decide differently

and a Colorado decision is not binding on other states' courts. However, re-iterating the POS's role in what happened on Jan. 6 could be advantageous to us. Nowhere do I want to imply that the POS has a chance of being thrown off the ballot in red states, or even many blue states, even though the case is quite compelling.

Yes, 4 of the justices didn't agree with the lower court's opinion re whether or not the POS was an Officer or held an office. But the basic finding of him engaging in insurrection was not disputed. 2 of the dissenters disagreed with how the Court applied the Colorado Constitution and laws to this case. So I wouldn't say they disagreed necessarily with the lower court's essential finding, that the POS engaged in insurrection.

The state court was also interpreting it's own constitution, which doesn't allow for those engaging in insurrection to be on the ballot, according to the 4 who ruled as such.

The USSC will undoubtedly fuck up and find some bs reason to overrule this decision. However, at least their flagrant bs about originalism will be exposed.

[dpibel]

37. Hot News For You!!

There has been a legal finding that Trump engaged in insurrection.

I'm not sure why you're so dismissive of that fact. "Just one puny little judge!"

Judges make findings of this sort all day every day.

You are, of course, engaging in some careless usage.

Your subject line is just wrong on its face. There was a trial in Colorado, complete with evidence, witnesses, cross examination, and representation for both parties. At the end of that trial, the judge made "a legal finding of participating in an insurrection." This is a matter of public record, and your statement to the contrary is just flat wrong.

Your attempted save later in your post is to demand a "LEGAL FINDING of guilt." But this is not a criminal case. And as everyone knows by now, Article 3 of the 14th Amendment contains no requirement of criminal conviction.

This is closer to an employment law case than it is to a criminal one. There's no precedent for demanding a jury, a finding beyond reasonable doubt, or criminal conviction. People get denied jobs based on their conduct all the time. If they end up in front of an Administrative Law judge, they get no jury, and there's certainly no possibility of being found guilty of a crime. If they end up in a civil court, then they are likely entitled to a jury, but the burden of proof is more likely than not and the sole exposure for anyone is loss of money.

It amazes me how people cannot seem to sort out that different legal matters involve different standards of proof and even different levels of due process.

[WarGamer]

41. SCOTUS will decide. I think it'll be 9-0. WE WILL SEE.

Bookmark this and laugh at me if I was wrong.

[dpibel]

44. Accuracy matters

I'm not really interested in predicting what the Supremes will do or whether the decision will be unanimous (although I will say it would astonish me beyond words if, as you suggest in another post, the Supremes engraft a requirement of criminal conviction when no such thing remotely exists in the 14th).

I'm interested in trying to get people to stop making legally nonsensical claims, like "there was no finding of insurrection."

I think it is more likely than not that the Supremes will figure out some way to bail on this question. But it's going to be another outcome-oriented decision, like Bush v. Gore and Dobbs, which is supported by quite a bit of handwaving and very little legitimate legal analysis. And, frankly, it wouldn't surprise me tremendously if they upheld the CO courts. It's a states-rights thing, after all, and the CO decisions (which you clearly have not read) were pretty tightly reasoned. I see no evidence that this Supreme Court is much invested in Trumpism, so they're not going to go too far to protect his fat ass. And--think about it--if you're correct that upholding the CO decision (and the Maine one, which will get decided at the same time) is license for all red states to take Democrats off ballots, then why wouldn't these rogue Supremes set things up to make that happen?

After all, we're all post-rule-of-law cynics now, aren't we?

[Kennah]

27. Insanity plea? Accepted. But that shoulda been filed in 2016.

[Silent Type]

31. We know he did it, but think one has to be adjudicated an insurrectionist, unless

he was a member/supporter of the Confederacy. In he latter half of 1800s it was easy to determine confederate insurrectionists because they were part of Confederacy, thus no need for conviction. It’s different now.

However, if trump is kept off ballot, say Harlen Crow tells Thomas to screw trump, won’t hear a complaint from me.

[Stargleamer]

39. see reply #28 above n/t

[Silent Type]

43. When the Colorado judge orders a sentence hearing for insurrection, we have him.

I don’t think the judge found him guilty of insurrection in the formal sense. The judge threw in some commentary in her decision, though I do agree with her commentary.

[dpibel]

48. What is this "formal sense" of which you speak?

He was not charged with the crime of insurrection. Thus, the judge did not find him guilty of insurrection in any sense, formal or informal.

And I have no idea what you mean by "threw in some commentary in her decision." She made findings of fact following a trial. That is what judges do. It is her ruling, not "some commentary."

The issue before the court was not "Is Trump guilty of the federal crime of insurrection." Just for starters, it's a federal crime, and, if it were being tried, it would be tried in a federal court and prosecuted by a federal prosecutor.

The question before this court was: "In the context of the 14th Amendment, did Trump engage in insurrection or offer aid and comfort to enemies of the constitution." The court tried that issue and found that, yes, Trump engaged in insurrection.

The question of guilt or innocence under federal statutory law was not before the court.

The question whether Trump was DQed from being president under the 14th was.

And I have astonishing news for all the legal experts opining on these threads: State courts can, and do, interpret and apply the US Constitution all the livelong day. And it's, like, OK, man.

[Silent Type]

51. We've gotten too much in weeds, my fault. Believe, ultimately, trump will

be on ballots unless GOPers nominate someone else OR trump is convicted (after appeals) of something even close to insurrection.

Again, if trump is barred from ballots, I’ll do a little dance.

[Blue Owl]

45. K&R

[MichMan]

49. Since he has been proven to be guilty of insurrection in Colorado, can he be charged criminally for it in that state?

Similar to what is happening in Georgia?

[moondust]

53. He's not even eligible for a security clearance.

I think it was discussed here back in 2015-16 that he could never be granted a security clearance because of all his years of shady dealings with Russian oligarchs and other foreign entanglements. Since then his behavior has only gotten much worse.

[Bucky]

55. The key phrase here is "excluded from government service"

When Donald Trump was president, he didn't do one damn thing to serve the government. The only thing he serviced in 4 years was his own filthy bank accounts.

[MiHale]

57. KnR...nt

[Kid Berwyn]

58. Absolutely!

Traitors to the Constitution have no right to be part of the US Government.

[3825-87867]

59. This may upset some here.

There are some who either didn't read the Smith brief or think they understand something because they either want to be the first to say, "Did you know that so and so has cancer?" or "I saw that crash first!"

Smith makes the factual point in his brief that trump did NOTHING to prevent the attack on the capitol! It was his sworn duty to protect it. He didn't. By doing nothing to stop it OR prevent it especially knowing it was going to happen, he violated his oath. Plain and simple enough for anyone. He knew it was a planned attack on the capitol and even was going to attend with them and did NOTHING. He's not elegible to hold office again.

And just another simple point. He can still run for presidency as can anyone here. He just can't hold office. The supine court should have no say in this. It's written in stone. You must be 35 to occupy that office. You can't be involved in any way in an insurrection after having taken an oath to defend the Constitution. And there's no requirement for due process.

To further amplify, ANYONE can run for preisdent regardless of age! They just aren't elegible to hold office if they don't meet that requirement. And votes for anyone not meeting the requirements would be null and void.

SO, any of you who are under 35 and interested, you CAN run for president. You just can't be president even if you get the most votes. Even Taylor Swift could run right now. Would the Supremacists disagree with that? Don't think so. So the amendment is as written.

SOme here should peddle their twat at newsmax, OAN or anywhere on the right's sites as it seems all they want is to attract attention and rmake the claim they said it first.

There's no harm in not understanding much legal-ease, but at least try to understand what a document actually says before you think you know more than the author unless of course, you're a legal scholar.

[myohmy2]

61. K&R...

...