Politico: 14th Amendment and Trump...
- Thread starter Bloom.
- Start date
Yes, as was another poster, who complained to one of the staffers, who asked me to unban him. I said no, and he threatened 'retribution'. His word choice.
I was banned once two days before Knight was fired. I didn't complain.
Old dudes can't handle it I guess.
It’s obvious many of you have never read the Federalist Papers, founding father’s parallel writings, etc that would tell you their exact thoughts on these issues. To say we can’t know what they were thinking is ludicrous. Yes, we can - they told us.
Or, would you rather us follow your line of thinking?
Many of you will recognize the author’s name
The Sweep and Force of Section Three
Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range
papers.ssrn.com
No. Wrong direction. Misunderstanding of the Founder’s thinking and the development of the Electoral College. It’s actually the exact opposite of yours.
There were 13 states. They couldn't agree on if only landowners should vote, let alone freed blacks. And women? LOL
They didn't trust the individual voter, let alone the collective will of the people. They care about the will of those like them.
I'm going to take a pass on any notion they had forethought on what voting was like as grew to 50 states, with 52 sets of voting rules. I'm not arguing against the electoral college, but we don't need state legislators determining how votes for federal offices are cast, collected and counted and whether or not a felon should be able to run for President.
Still have a hard time seeing any of it flying w/o an applicable conviction or pleading.Many of you will recognize the author’s name
The Sweep and Force of Section Three
Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a rangepapers.ssrn.com
I somewhat expect him to plead out of jail time in agreement to not run. His reasoning for not doing that would be to avoid future legal issues, but unless he plans on dying in office, those charges can still find him after he would be done in 2029.
I would rather you quote something out of the Federalist Papers that proves me wrong rather than just act like I'm wrong.
Of course the Federalist Papers are not law, but I'd still like to see if you can do it.
1. a plea deal not to run cannot happen. that would not be enforceable under a host of legal issues.
2. a conviction isn't necessary. now as a practical matter state folks may be too spooked to do it w/o same but legally it isn't necessary
Most of the Confederate leaders were never convicted, right? The 14th took effect without any required legal proceeding.
1) Depends on if any mandated minimums of his felony charges. (I haven't read all the indictments of the two cases actually involving the election.)
2) I don't know who makes the case, but I can absolutely see them believing it's self-enacting. However, that would then end up with SCOTUS, and some of those guys don't want their paid vacations and travel to go away.
According to the article, they were pardoned, but the 14th was past without the Southern states. They had to ratify it go get back in the Union.
The mechanics of how the 14th came about and applied in short order was the most fascinating part of the article.
1) no has nothing to do with that. a judge can require other sentencing obligations but they can't be political. that would be political/public, would disenfranchise state voters, on and on. that can't be part of a plea deal
Last edited:
Sure it would, as a condition of probation. They can make you jump through all kinds of hoops if you want to stay out of jail. Fines and jail time are the only actual penalties that can be legally imposed -- everything else is a condition of probation.
they can make you stand in front of target with a sign that says i stole from here. they can make you pick shit up on the side of a highway. they cannot make you agree not to run for office. that's a term that would be unenforceable. against public policy etc
Since IANAL I won't argue with you, but I still think you're wrong.
It pains me to admit it, but McM is right on this one. Besides public policy grounds, it's loaded with separation of powers issues.
If you say so, but...
But that would only apply if a "not running" condition was imposed and then challenged. If Trump agreed to that condition, then he wouldn't be able to challenge it. And technically, while there's definitely some coercion involved, conditions of probation are agreed upon. Don't like the conditions, then do the time.
For the reasons goat and I said re public policy and separation of powers etc. so in your hypo I think trump could enter a plea deal and as an added condition agree to not run and then immediately run and there would be nothing the court could do to stop him as it relates to the plea agreement
I had a few drinks and am foggy. Trying to get you to understand. Say I made a contract with you to kill goat. If you kill goat I’ll pay you ten grand. You kill goat and come to collect and I say F off. I’m not paying you. You can’t go to court and sue me for breach. The agreement was never enforceable
I don't know the answer, but I found 28 USC 3563(b)(6), which says a court may impose conditions of probation under certain conditions requiring a defendant to:
"(6) refrain, in the case of an individual, from engaging in a specified occupation, business, or profession bearing a reasonably direct relationship to the conduct constituting the offense, or engage in such a specified occupation, business, or profession only to a stated degree or under stated circumstances."
The instructions for the federal probation forms state:
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(5), the court may provide that the defendant “refrain, in the case of an individual, from engaging in a specified occupation, business, or profession bearing a reasonably direct relationship to the conduct constituting the offense, or engage in such a specified occupation, business, or profession only to a stated degree or under stated circumstances.”
Chapter 3: Employment Restrictions (Probation and Supervised Release Conditions)
A. Statutory Authority Under 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(5), the court may provide that the defendant “refrain, in the case of an individual, from engaging in a specified occupation, business, or profession bearing a reasonably direct relationship to the conduct constituting the offense, or engage in...
It states the purpose as, "
- This condition serves the statutory sentencing purposes of public protection. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C). Defendants may be prohibited from working in certain industries (e.g., financial, medical, legal) to prevent future criminal offenses.
You assume that 1) you'd have to pay me, and 2) I'd trust you to pay without getting money up front.
There’s a private public distinction. As well as third party contemplation. Judge could tell a Ponzi scheme guy he is prohibited from raising money or something. Can’t tell a politician not to run for elected officeI don't know the answer, but I found 28 USC 3563(b)(6), which says a court may impose conditions of probation under certain conditions requiring a defendant to:
"(6) refrain, in the case of an individual, from engaging in a specified occupation, business, or profession bearing a reasonably direct relationship to the conduct constituting the offense, or engage in such a specified occupation, business, or profession only to a stated degree or under stated circumstances."
The instructions for the federal probation forms state:
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(5), the court may provide that the defendant “refrain, in the case of an individual, from engaging in a specified occupation, business, or profession bearing a reasonably direct relationship to the conduct constituting the offense, or engage in such a specified occupation, business, or profession only to a stated degree or under stated circumstances.”
Chapter 3: Employment Restrictions (Probation and Supervised Release Conditions)
A. Statutory Authority Under 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(5), the court may provide that the defendant “refrain, in the case of an individual, from engaging in a specified occupation, business, or profession bearing a reasonably direct relationship to the conduct constituting the offense, or engage in...www.uscourts.gov
It states the purpose as, "
I'm sure the inquiry goes further than this, but it's interesting to think about what occupations, businesses or professions would bear "a reasonably direct relationship to the conduct constituting the offense," when the offense relates to illegal efforts to retain employment in an office by overturning an election.
- This condition serves the statutory sentencing purposes of public protection. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C). Defendants may be prohibited from working in certain industries (e.g., financial, medical, legal) to prevent future criminal offenses.
You two should stop playing law
Thinking about this stuff is still more productive than thinking about Ohio State v. Indiana.
I know bankers and brokers that got in legal trouble have been barred from engaging in those businesses in the future but I don't know the legal mechanism. I couldn't find any examples of Senators or Reps getting banned from office but I don't have a good research account.
Maybe Jack Smith will do this research for us some day.
Cooler weather. Farmers markets. Pumpkins. Octoberfest beers. Fall soccer and football. First day of the best two months of the year
I'm going to throw Mark a bone here. This couldn't be part of a plea, but it might be possible to make it part of a non prosecution agreement. Keeps the court out of it. I still wouldn't recommend it, but if the real goal of the DOJ was to keep him from running (it's not), that might be an avenue to explore.
I don't know the answer, but I found 28 USC 3563(b)(6), which says a court may impose conditions of probation under certain conditions requiring a defendant to:
"(6) refrain, in the case of an individual, from engaging in a specified occupation, business, or profession bearing a reasonably direct relationship to the conduct constituting the offense, or engage in such a specified occupation, business, or profession only to a stated degree or under stated circumstances."
The instructions for the federal probation forms state:
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(5), the court may provide that the defendant “refrain, in the case of an individual, from engaging in a specified occupation, business, or profession bearing a reasonably direct relationship to the conduct constituting the offense, or engage in such a specified occupation, business, or profession only to a stated degree or under stated circumstances.”
Chapter 3: Employment Restrictions (Probation and Supervised Release Conditions)
A. Statutory Authority Under 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(5), the court may provide that the defendant “refrain, in the case of an individual, from engaging in a specified occupation, business, or profession bearing a reasonably direct relationship to the conduct constituting the offense, or engage in...
It states the purpose as, "
I'm sure the inquiry goes further than this, but it's interesting to think about what occupations, businesses or professions would bear "a reasonably direct relationship to the conduct constituting the offense," when the offense relates to illegal efforts to retain employment in an office by overturning an election.
- This condition serves the statutory sentencing purposes of public protection. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C). Defendants may be prohibited from working in certain industries (e.g., financial, medical, legal) to prevent future criminal offenses.
Wouldn't we presume as well that on probation, he wouldn't be allowed to leave his state of residence?
Another aspect would be home detention.
Trump's priorities are:
1) Power
2) Staying out of prison/jail
Now, those two could weave in and out based on the week and information his attorneys and he have, but I'd say he's drifted deeply toward #2 at this point.
Similar threads
