Groups seeking to keep President Trump off the ballot next year notched a key legal victory this week, after a Colorado state judge sided with their view of an arcane but critical question: Does Congress need to do anything for Trump to be disqualified under the Constitution’s Disqualification Clause?
Self-execution? I strongly urge Trump to give it a try.
This whole disqualification issue is garbage. the Once and Future President can’t be DQ’d as he wasn’t an official in the confederacy and hasn’t been convicted of anything that would allow for him to be disqualified.
It’s just wishcasting.
The clause has nothing to do with the Confederacy or the Civil War, other than it was added as a response to both. The clause is about insurrection and wisely realized that if there was one, there likely would be others.
Don’t remember any mention of “confederacy” in the 14th Amendment. Could you perhaps show me where that reference, as opposed to the clear reference to “insurrection or rebellion” that does exist in the text of Amend. 14, Sec. 3, might be found? I’ll wait. (In re. IBecameACitizenforthis, are we witnessing evidence that the test for naturalization needs to be strengthened?)
Yeah, no.
Show where Once and Future has been proven guilty of insurrection. I’ll wait. “Because I say so and my fee fees are hurt” is not a legal argument.
He’s an ambulatory mountain of crap but there’s no basis to DQ him.
What insurrection or rebellion has he been proven to lead? I’ll wait.
Might be time to read what the law states, which says nothing about “conviction”.
There is no requirement in the clause that Trump be tried and convicted. Here’s the language, provided as a refresher for all engaged in this discussion:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
ETA: I would assume the question of how to officially determine what it means to have “engaged in insurrection…” is being considered by all parties in these suits.
How does the Amendment specify who determines, or how that determination gets made? The constitution says, outside of citizenship and age requirements, that it’s up to states to determine. Colorado says no conviction is required, and a judge has agreed. Still subject to appeal, but as it stands, that’s the law.
“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
He doesn’t need to lead it and it doesn’t require a conviction, he engaged in it after taking an oath of office to the Constitution. There are hundreds of people in jail for the 1/6 insurrection and many of them are on the record stating that they did so in support of Trump and their desire to see the election results overturned in his favor.
Interestingly, Congress did pass legislation …
… called “the fucking 14th Amendment.”
Now the requirement is that one has to LEAD said “insurrection or rebellion”?!!??? Who elected you sole authority to edit and amend the Constitution?
There is more than enough evidence to support the fact that he engaged in an insurrection. Sorry if your stupidity demands that said insurrection must include men in grey wool overcoats and horses, but that’s the kind of analysis I’d expect from a 7th grader.
The intention of an insurrection is to overthrow the established order, but please do continue to pull our chain, and insist a slate of fake electors, threatening statements to “find” 11,780 votes, a mob sent to the capitol, and so much more weren’t intended to overthrow the established order.
Cut the crap and stop wasting our time Ivan. It’s late in Moscow. You must be working the overnight shift at the troll farm.
Well I guess I’m the only one who quickly read the headline and thought, “Why in the Hell is Donnie suing Dairy Queen”?
With all due respect, GFY.
An entreaty to all here: though our opinions may differ based on the subject at hand and our individual experience, expertise and bias, we’re all on the same team. @IBecameACitizenforthis is a frequent commenter who doesn’t deserve the personal attacks on their character or mental acuity. If you disagree with their position, just lay out your arguments.
Not to be the Thought Police, but c’mon.
Yes and so someone has to determine that he did commit insurrection (which obviously he did). That’s not going to happen before the election, and after, it’s moot either way.
The assertion has been made, officially in Colorado and 2 other states, that TFG did, after swearing an oath to defend the Constitution, participate in an insurrection or rebellion against the U.S. If TFG wishes to challenge that assertion, the mechanism is also clearly defined within the 14th. All he has to do is convince 2/3rds of Congress to vote that he did not participate.
