Politico: 14th Amendment and Trump...

[Bloom.]

The linked article is an interesting analysis of how and when the 14th Amendment gets triggered.

Is it self-enacting? I would say no, but then it dives into how the 14th Amendment came to be and how it was used to keep secessionists out of government, while the country healed, despite President Johnson pardoning them all.

Opinion | Legal Scholars Say the 14th Amendment Bars Trump From Office. Here’s What History Says.

The past offers answers in the new Constitutional debate over Trump’s eligibility.

www.politico.com

It also dabbles a bit into post slavery 'Black Codes', kind of rounding out what @CO. Hoosier were talking about in how slavery is taught. I remember learning of Black Codes, but I don't recall (going back to the main point of the article) being taught how the 14th Amendment was codified.

 

[Bloom.]

Given the current makeup of the SCOTUS, I doubt Trump's run in 2024 is eradicated without a conviction or pleading. Not sure it should, as much as I would hate to see him in office again. In the case of the Southern states seceding, that was a pretty tangible act. Pardon or not, we know they did it, and they certainly knew it in real time.

Interesting was the view presented that some were trying push the South as conquered territory.

 

[Ohio Guy]

New Hampshire is looking at potentially removing him from the ballot, though it’s acknowledged that’s a long shot.

 

[Bloom.]

New Hampshire is looking at potentially removing him from the ballot, though it’s acknowledged that’s a long shot.

That wouldn't work in a lot of states. This is why we need clearer federal election laws, instead of 52 sets of rules.

I don't see it happening unless he's convicted.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

The linked article is an interesting analysis of how and when the 14th Amendment gets triggered.

I hope it happens, but that would be the worst case for Dems. They need Trump to be allowed to win because he isn't going to win.

 

[dbmhoosier]

He was already acquitted by the Senate. He cannot be removed from the ballot.

 

[TMFT]

He was already acquitted by the Senate. He cannot be removed from the ballot.

I don’t think impeachment results have anything to do with it. It’s not like that’s a criminal court or really any kind of court. It’s a political process/remedy/outcome.

With that being said, I think the 14th Amendment idea is dumb because (1) there is no procedure outlined on the determination of who is not allowed to hold office, and (2) I don’t think it was enough on his own actions to qualify what was pretty clearly a civil war active rebellion reference. If he had led a mob into busting in Capitol doors leading a “hang Mike pence” chant, maybe.

 

[Bloom.]

I don’t think impeachment results have anything to do with it. It’s not like that’s a criminal court or really any kind of court. It’s a political process/remedy/outcome.

With that being said, I think the 14th Amendment idea is dumb because (1) there is no procedure outlined on the determination of who is not allowed to hold office, and (2) I don’t think it was enough on his own actions to qualify what was pretty clearly a civil war active rebellion reference. If he had led a mob into busting in Capitol doors leading a “hang Mike pence” chant, maybe.

We're well past the point of specificity of the Constitution. A lot of its language was vague on purpose, figuring state laws would fill in the gaps, and some of it understandably lacked the foresight of what issues and technologies would eventually spanw

What I liked, if I understood it properly, the 14th Amendment was voted on without the southern states being able to vote since...well...they were no longer part of the country. To get back in, they had accept the 14th Amendment. I'm sure that pissed off some good old confederates.

 

[bawlmer]

I don’t think impeachment results have anything to do with it. It’s not like that’s a criminal court or really any kind of court. It’s a political process/remedy/outcome.

With that being said, I think the 14th Amendment idea is dumb because (1) there is no procedure outlined on the determination of who is not allowed to hold office, and (2) I don’t think it was enough on his own actions to qualify what was pretty clearly a civil war active rebellion reference. If he had led a mob into busting in Capitol doors leading a “hang Mike pence” chant, maybe.

It invites lawsuits in every state to keep him off the ballot. It will land at the SC.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

The linked article is an interesting analysis of how and when the 14th Amendment gets triggered.

Is it self-enacting? I would say no, but then it dives into how the 14th Amendment came to be and how it was used to keep secessionists out of government, while the country healed, despite President Johnson pardoning them all.

Opinion | Legal Scholars Say the 14th Amendment Bars Trump From Office. Here’s What History Says.

The past offers answers in the new Constitutional debate over Trump’s eligibility.

www.politico.com

It also dabbles a bit into post slavery 'Black Codes', kind of rounding out what @CO. Hoosier were talking about in how slavery is taught. I remember learning of Black Codes, but I don't recall (going back to the main point of the article) being taught how the 14th Amendment was codified.

This an embarrassingly weak argument:

But the history behind the 14th Amendment proves its general applicability. Conspiring, whether by violence or coercion, to overturn the outcome of an election is precisely what Confederate officers and officeholders did. They didn’t like the outcome of the 1860 election, so they tried to dismantle the United States, first by walking away, then by force.​

That was what Section 3 called “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States government. It’s hard to argue that the same thing didn’t happen in the aftermath of the 2020 election. For symbolic measure, insurrectionists carried the Confederate battle flag into the Capitol on Jan. 6, marching in lock step with an earlier generation of Americans who aspired to end our system of government. That it was a bungled attempt, and that it didn’t work, doesn’t make it different.​

​

Carrying the stars and bars is free expression. (Whether it was legal at that time and place has to do with open forum rules, not insurrection). What happened on J6 is nowhere close to the 14th Amendment standard. The most that can ever be said about J6 is that it was an attempt. And not a very good one at that.

As a side note, I think the 14th Amendment was a monumental change to our system of federalism and how government operates. The FF’s would never have approved it. The 14th should be a larger part of US history or civics curriculum. Understanding the 14th helps to understand the original constitution.

 

[Bloom.]

As a side note, I think the 14th Amendment was a monumental change to our system of federalism and how government operates. The FF’s would never have approved it. The 14th should be a larger part of US history or civics curriculum. Understanding the 14th helps to understand the original constitution.

Love when people say this. Reminds me of those who talk to God or Jesus. You have zero clue about how the founding fathers would feel about future issues facing this nation. The Constitution was set up, in part, to allow current issues be assessed as needed and included.

Keep in mind, we had people who thought slavery should've been a states' issue. Morons. We probably still do. LOL

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You have zero clue about how the founding fathers would feel about future issues facing this nation

This particular issue was part of the debate when drafting the constitution.

 

[Stuffshot]

This an embarrassingly weak argument:

But the history behind the 14th Amendment proves its general applicability. Conspiring, whether by violence or coercion, to overturn the outcome of an election is precisely what Confederate officers and officeholders did. They didn’t like the outcome of the 1860 election, so they tried to dismantle the United States, first by walking away, then by force.​

That was what Section 3 called “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States government. It’s hard to argue that the same thing didn’t happen in the aftermath of the 2020 election. For symbolic measure, insurrectionists carried the Confederate battle flag into the Capitol on Jan. 6, marching in lock step with an earlier generation of Americans who aspired to end our system of government. That it was a bungled attempt, and that it didn’t work, doesn’t make it different.​

​

Carrying the stars and bars is free expression. (Whether it was legal at that time and place has to do with open forum rules, not insurrection). What happened on J6 is nowhere close to the 14th Amendment standard. The most that can ever be said about J6 is that it was an attempt. And not a very good one at that.

As a side note, I think the 14th Amendment was a monumental change to our system of federalism and how government operates. The FF’s would never have approved it. The 14th should be a larger part of US history or civics curriculum. Understanding the 14th helps to understand the original constitution.

Don't get too caught up in "the original constitution" or what the Founding Fathers thought about it. It's not like that any more.

We live in times in which the Second Amendment's is used to support wide open gun ownership ostensibly for "personal protection" (which is not mentioned in the text) and without any restriction to a "well regulated militia" (which actually is mentioned in the text).

And, the founding fathers considered the voters in presidential elections to be only the electors, not the citizens. I couldn't find a link but I've read that all of Washington's electors were chosen by state legislatures.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Don't get too caught up in "the original constitution" or what the Founding Fathers thought about it. It's not like that any more.

I’m not caught up on anything. I’m talking about the impact of the 14th the basic structure of the state/federal relationship. What we take for granted today dates back to the 14th, not back to the original constitution.

 

[UncleMark]

It invites lawsuits in every state to keep him off the ballot. It will land at the SC.

This is way out of my league, but I suspect that each state has certain basic requirements that any candidate has to meet to be on the ballot, and the 14th could be cited if people wanted to challenge Trump appearing. Of course it would end up at the Supreme Court.

 

[bawlmer]

This is way out of my league, but I suspect that each state has certain basic requirements that any candidate has to meet to be on the ballot, and the 14th could be cited if people wanted to challenge Trump appearing. Of course it would end up at the Supreme Court.

And even if the powers that be in the state don't want to make it an issue, citizens in every state will likely have standing to challenge Trump on the ballot. Hell, I'll probably join in myself.

 

[Bloom.]

I’m not caught up on anything. I’m talking about the impact of the 14th the basic structure of the state/federal relationship. What we take for granted today dates back to the 14th, not back to the original constitution.

Or that a dispute against the country warrants a country wide response.

I get states' right on many issues, but the 14th Amendment is about holding federal office. Let's face it, when biggest give and take in the last 1700's was about giving a single/federal government too much power, it was on the heels of winning freedom against a monarchy.

We have amendments to take care of things unforeseen in 1789.

 

[Bloom.]

This is way out of my league, but I suspect that each state has certain basic requirements that any candidate has to meet to be on the ballot, and the 14th could be cited if people wanted to challenge Trump appearing. Of course it would end up at the Supreme Court.

It's obvious, without a conviction, there will be a case brought to the SCOTUS. Even with a conviction, I'd gather it will come close to that level.

 

[Stuffshot]

It's obvious, without a conviction, there will be a case brought to the SCOTUS. Even with a conviction, I'd gather it will come close to that level.

If this theory is valid, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment concerns "insurrection or rebellion" in violation of oaths "to support the Constitution of the United States", so it does not read like it applies to crimes against individual states. That would indicate that convictions in the New York and Georgia cases probably would not be enough to disqualify Trump.

And, illegal possession of documents does not sound serious enough to constitute "insurrection or rebellion" against the federal government. So, a conviction in the federal documents case does not seem enough to disqualify him under the 14th Amendment either.

That leaves only the federal election interference case in which a conviction might be enough to disqualify Trump. Trial in that case is to begin March 4, 2024.

 

[Bloom.]

If this theory is valid, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment concerns "insurrection or rebellion" in violation of oaths "to support the Constitution of the United States", so it does not read like it applies to crimes against individual states. That would indicate that convictions in the New York and Georgia cases probably would not be enough to disqualify Trump.

And, illegal possession of documents does not sound serious enough to constitute "insurrection or rebellion" against the federal government. So, a conviction in the federal documents case does not seem enough to disqualify him under the 14th Amendment either.

That leaves only the federal election interference case in which a conviction might be enough to disqualify Trump. Trial in that case is to begin March 4, 2024.

We know the loons will still vote for him even with a felony conviction, but with a felony on record, his ability to participate in a lot of states will be in jeopardy.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

We know the loons will still vote for him even with a felony conviction, but with a felony on record, his ability to participate in a lot of states will be in jeopardy.

Remember when California tried to make disclosure of income tax returns a requirement to be on the ballot? The courts shot that down. The requirements for president are defined by the constitution. Period.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

We know the loons will still vote for him even with a felony conviction, but with a felony on record, his ability to participate in a lot of states will be in jeopardy.

No, it won't. States can require potential candidates to follow basic procedures like filing, getting signatures, etc. They cannot just invent new qualifications like "no felonies."

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Or that a dispute against the country warrants a country wide response.

I get states' right on many issues, but the 14th Amendment is about holding federal office. Let's face it, when biggest give and take in the last 1700's was about giving a single/federal government too much power, it was on the heels of winning freedom against a monarchy.

We have amendments to take care of things unforeseen in 1789.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

One of the reasons the 14th is so important is that it re-defined the state-federal relationship. Before it was adopted, state governments were not limited by the Bill of Rights. Thus a state could have banned all guns or established a state religion, assuming the state constitution permitted that. Now we take for granted that states are bound by the BoR’s as if it has always been that way.

The due process clause is also mostly a creature of the 14th.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

One of the reasons the 14th is so important is that it re-defined the state-federal relationship. Before it was adopted, state governments were not limited by the Bill of Rights. Thus a state could have banned all guns or established a state religion, assuming the state constitution permitted that. Now we take for granted that states are bound by the BoR’s as if it has always been that way.

The due process clause is also mostly a creature of the 14th.

That has nothing to do with this thread. You're distracting attention away from Section 3.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

That has nothing to do with this thread. You're distracting attention away from Section 3.

Well you are correct. But Bloom and I have a side discussion going about the 14th in general. The section 3 discussion as related to Trump is weak sauce, a waste of time, and is just another of the eleventy thousand anti-Trump threads.

 

[Bloom.]

Well you are correct. But Bloom and I have a side discussion going about the 14th in general. The section 3 discussion as related to Trump is weak sauce, a waste of time, and is just another of the eleventy thousand anti-Trump threads.

If it was anti-Trump, I would've been cheering at the top of my lungs. WOO HOO!!

The mechanics of the 14th is interesting, compared to its use on secessionists who were pardoned. The self-enacting part of it was also interesting, but I see that as being a SCOTUS issue. I don't see SCOTUS acting without convictions.

You just didn't like it because the very last couple of paragraphs the writer offers an opinion you didn't like.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You just didn't like it because the very last couple of paragraphs the writer offers an opinion you didn't like.

I don’t like the it because I don’t like it? Now you sound like the lawyers in the article.

I think their opinion is wrong and unsupported. That is why I disagree. Not liking an opinion doesn’t compute. I don’t like many judicial opinions, but at least I can see the argument. The lawyers here didn’t even really try.

 

[Bloom.]

I don’t like the it because I don’t like it? Now you sound like the lawyers in the article.

I think their opinion is wrong and unsupported. That is why I disagree. Not liking an opinion doesn’t compute. I don’t like many judicial opinions, but at least I can see the argument. The lawyers here didn’t even really try.

The opinion expressed at the end of the article is immaterial to the article or why I posted it.

 

[dbmhoosier]

 

[Bloom.]

View embedded media

What do you know? Someone who insists on following the law.

Seems lost on Trump and his supporters.

 

[dbmhoosier]

What do you know? Someone who insists on following the law.

Seems lost on Trump and his supporters.

What you talking about? Look even Desantis is essentially conceding Trump is the nominee.

 

[Bloom.]

What you talking about? Look even Desantis is essentially conceding Trump is the nominee.

View embedded media

That has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

 

[dbmhoosier]

That has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

It does. He knows Trump can't be removed from the ballot therefore he has no chance.

 

[Bloom.]

It does. He knows Trump can't be removed from the ballot therefore he has no chance.

No

 

[Indyhorn]

What do you know? Someone who insists on following the law.

Seems lost on Trump and his supporters.

The best news is some of the most dyed-in-the-wool Trumpists like Lucy who came out for racial profiling or Danc who thinks Trump name came out in pilot testimony in Maxwell trial because Trump would fly the LoLita Express with family from Manhattan to the Jersey shore (ya know the 14 minute flight logs weren’t supportive but it’s Danc, so….) well the board is getting smarter by the day

 

[Bloom.]

The best news is some of the most dyed-in-the-wool Trumpists like Lucy who came out for racial profiling or Danc who thinks Trump name came out in pilot testimony in Maxwell trial because Trump would fly the LoLita Express with family from Manhattan to the Jersey shore (ya know the 14 minute flight logs weren’t supportive but it’s Danc, so….) well the board is getting smarter by the day

Her vacation was over awhile ago

 

[Indyhorn]

Her vacation was over awhile ago

I hope that evil she he has taken to the literal hills- racial profiling is despicable even if a fellow mod said he she was smarter than she seemed

 

[Bloom.]

I hope that evil she he has taken to the literal hills- racial profiling is despicable even if a fellow mod said he she was smarter than she seemed

I don't know what she's like over here.

She got banned for effectively the same thing DANC did. She had a post pulled (not in a discussion with me), had a hissy fit and reposted it. Deleted it and gave her a topic ban, then she started a new topic about it. Vacation.

I would think people would sense a pattern. You start doubling down pulled post and carrying it across multiple topics...you need a break.

 

[Indyhorn]

I don't know what she's like over here.

She got banned for effectively the same thing DANC did. She had a post pulled (not in a discussion with me), had a hissy fit and reposted it. Deleted it and gave her a topic ban, then she started a new topic about it. Vacation.

I would think people would sense a pattern. You start doubling down pulled post and carrying it across multiple topics...you need a break.

Except I think she’s a he who hates diversity it’s a weird vibe for sure

 

[Bloom.]

Except I think she’s a he who hates diversity it’s a weird vibe for sure

She's a 'who' who never saw Luke Brown play, yet spent three years beating the Premie over the head with his big fish in a small pond disposition.

Said it many times in real times, it wasn't Luke's fault Lucy was speaking crazy.