Fourteenth Amendment | Section 3 - Disqualification from Holding Office

[BillStime]

Fourteenth Amendment Section 3 | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

 

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.

 

 

Trump to far-right extremists: STAND DOWN and STAND BY

 

 

A lot of aiding and comforting going on here:

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The Frankish Reich]

I don't agree with this approach, trying to disqualify him from the ballot based on the 14th Amendment. 

The proper constitutional approach was to impeach him, which happened, but did not succeed. (All you Ron DeSantis types out there - bet you wish that had succeeded)

 

This is unlike the prosecutions, which I believe are valid and of varying strength/merit.

Bragg NY prosecution: stupid, and a shaky legal theory

Smith classified docs prosecution: solid and proper

Smith Jan 6 prosecution: meritorious and necessary, but far from a slam dunk

Willis GA prosecution: the best thought-out, but very complex and will depend on proof

[BillStime]

8 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

I don't agree with this approach, trying to disqualify him from the ballot based on the 14th Amendment. 

I don’t agree with how the right bastardized the second amendment but it’s in the constitution. 

[TSOL]

Wow '16 really did break you guys badly huh 

[Tiberius]

Just now, TSOL said:

Wow '16 really did break you guys badly huh 

Ya, all the winning since then is a really bummer 🤣

[TSOL]

You guys just want to be able to run any sham candidate you want completely unopposed 

 

Are you really this scared of Trump/ conservatives 

 

Don't answer, we already know 

[BillStime]

5 minutes ago, TSOL said:

Wow '16 really did break you guys badly huh 

Why cherry pick what’s in the constitution?

 

The 14th Amendment is in there for a reason.

 

 

[TSOL]

4 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Why cherry pick what’s in the constitution?

 

The 14th Amendment is in there for a reason.

 

 

 

 

Yeah I was looking at that when I was arguing with one of you booger eaters last week or so. 

 

I found it inconclusive 

 

 

You guys are the ones who want to be ble to cancel your political rivals and amendments to the Constitution. 

[ChiGoose]

I remain skeptical of "one weird trick" ploys to beat Trump.

 

Gotta do it at the ballot box. Can't count on stuff like this.

[Tommy Callahan]

Anything to keep him off the ballot. amirite

 

And if he is, time for something to drive mass mail voting/harvesting.

 

 

 

 

[The Frankish Reich]

30 minutes ago, BillStime said:

I don’t agree with how the right bastardized the second amendment but it’s in the constitution. 

You do have a point there.

 

The words, standing alone, wouldn't support a reading that this clause was limited to those who engaged in or aided/abetted the rebellion of the insurrection in the southern states that led to the Civil War.

 

What I see from the Supreme Court lately is this: the conservative faction says that we should rely on the words themselves and avoid contextual analysis. Unless, of course, the words themselves would lead to a conclusion they'd rather not reach ...

[BillStime]

25 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

I remain skeptical of "one weird trick" ploys to beat Trump.

 

Gotta do it at the ballot box. Can't count on stuff like this.

 

How many tricks does Trump get to overturn an election?

 

[ChiGoose]

13 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

How many tricks does Trump get to overturn an election?

 

 

He should be prosecuted in accordance with the law.

 

But there is a tendency to look for someone to "save us" from Trump that seems to try to downplay the reality that the only sure thing that can prevent him from winning is voters.

• Mueller was lionized as the guy who was going to get Trump even though it was known he wouldn't recommend prosecution no matter what because it would be against DOJ policy. So instead of doing things like investigating emoluments issues, money laundering and other Trump crimes, the Dems in Congress just sat back and assumed Mueller would take care of it. When he instead gave them an impeachment roadmap, they just shrugged and ignored it
• Remember freaking Avenatti? The scumbag lawyer that people thought was a hero when he was just a grifter?
• The second impeachment was rushed because the Dems wanted to act immediately, which lead to a lot of evidence not being included. Though I suppose that doesn't matter because there wouldn't be enough GOP senators to convict if Trump had murdered Mitch McConnell on the senate floor
• With the indictments, people hope he'll be convicted before the election. He may be. He might not be. It's not something that should be counted on and he can run from prison if he wants to anyway.
• Even if there is merit to the 14th Amendment claim (and there might be), it's not going to happen. It's just not. And it wouldn't be accepted by about half the country if it did

The only thing that's going to stop Trump is the voters.

 

Or maybe a Filet O'Fish sandwich

Edited August 30, 2023 by ChiGoose

[BillStime]

34 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

He should be prosecuted in accordance with the law.

 

But there is a tendency to look for someone to "save us" from Trump that seems to try to downplay the reality that the only sure thing that can prevent him from winning is voters.

• Mueller was lionized as the guy who was going to get Trump even though it was known he wouldn't recommend prosecution no matter what because it would be against DOJ policy. So instead of doing things like investigating emoluments issues, money laundering and other Trump crimes, the Dems in Congress just sat back and assumed Mueller would take care of it. When he instead gave them an impeachment roadmap, they just shrugged and ignored it
• Remember freaking Avenatti? The scumbag lawyer that people thought was a hero when he was just a grifter?
• The second impeachment was rushed because the Dems wanted to act immediately, which lead to a lot of evidence not being included. Though I suppose that doesn't matter because there wouldn't be enough GOP senators to convict if Trump had murdered Mitch McConnell on the senate floor
• With the indictments, people hope he'll be convicted before the election. He may be. He might not be. It's not something that should be counted on and he can run from prison if he wants to anyway.
• Even if there is merit to the 14th Amendment claim (and there might be), it's not going to happen. It's just not. And it wouldn't be accepted by about half the country if it did

The only thing that's going to stop Trump is the voters.

 

Or maybe a Filet O'Fish sandwich

 

I'm not looking for anyone to save us from Trump. Democratic voters continue to do that over and over and over again since 2016 and that won't change in 2024 when pissed off women, young people and independents come out against Conald Trump.

 

But tell me - what is the purpose of the Constitution?

 

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:

I don't agree with this approach, trying to disqualify him from the ballot based on the 14th Amendment. 

The proper constitutional approach was to impeach him, which happened, but did not succeed. (All you Ron DeSantis types out there - bet you wish that had succeeded)

 

This is unlike the prosecutions, which I believe are valid and of varying strength/merit.

Bragg NY prosecution: stupid, and a shaky legal theory

Smith classified docs prosecution: solid and proper

Smith Jan 6 prosecution: meritorious and necessary, but far from a slam dunk

Willis GA prosecution: the best thought-out, but very complex and will depend on proof

Smith's J6 charges are double jeopardy as defined in A5.  "Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be put in jeopardy of life or limb."

 

The Semate acquited Trump of all J6 charges under the House articles of impeachment.  Smith's charges are moot.  They are materially similar and refernce the same act.  You can't be charged with conspiracy or obstruction of an act the court, in this case the Senate, has already determined you are innocent of and therefore had no involvement.

 

The mystery is how Trump's legal team has been asleep at the wheel in filing any motions to dismiss or petition the Supreme Court directly.

Edited August 30, 2023 by All_Pro_Bills

[ChiGoose]

6 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Smith's J6 charges are double jeopardy as defined in A5.  "Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be put in jeopardy of life or limb."

 

The Semate acquited Trump of all J6 charges under the House articles of impeachment.  Smith's charges are moot.  They are materially similar and refernce the same act.  You can't be charged with conspiracy or obstruction of an act the court, in this case the Senate, has already determined you are innocent of and therefore had no involvement.

 

The mystery is how Trump's legal team has been asleep at the wheel in filing any motions to dismiss or petition the Supreme Court directly.

 

This... is not how that works.

 

The reason Trump's lawyers haven't raised this is probably because they want to keep their licenses.

[BillStime]

It's hilarious - the cult talks about the 25th amendment EVERY day here... yet we should dismiss the 14th.

 

Can't make this up.

 

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

4 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

This... is not how that works.

 

The reason Trump's lawyers haven't raised this is probably because they want to keep their licenses.

Its not how what specifically works?

 

Show me legal precedent where a President was tried and acquited by Congress and then indicted for participating in the same crime after leaving office. 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

1 hour ago, Chris farley said:

Anything to keep him off the ballot. amirite

 

And if he is, time for something to drive mass mail voting/harvesting.

 

 

 

 

still totally positive they want him to win the primary 

[ChiGoose]

16 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

I'm not looking for anyone to save us from Trump. Democratic voters continue to do that over and over and over again since 2016 and that won't change in 2024 when pissed off women, young people and independents come out against Conald Trump.

 

But tell me - what is the purpose of the Constitution?

 

 

 

The Constitution is an imperfect document. It was written over 200 years ago in a very different world. It didn't anticipate the modern world and it certainly didn't anticipate Donald Trump (though the Founders were quite worried about someone like him arising). 

 

So things like the 14th Amendment's disbarment clause are not super clear and lead to differing opinions. Is it self-executing? Does it require a finding of insurrection? If so, by whom and how?

You can test it, have some body with standing move to disbar Trump. But that could have been done two years ago. Nothing relevant has changed in that time. So it feels a bit HashtagResistance-y and the latest in a line of "one weird tricks."

 

Organize. Donate (especially monthly recurring donations). Volunteer. Vote. GOTV. That's the only way.

[All_Pro_Bills]

6 minutes ago, BillStime said:

It's hilarious - the cult talks about the 25th amendment EVERY day here... yet we should dismiss the 14th.

 

Can't make this up.

 

 

Because idiots think just claiming it was an insurrection 100 times makes it one and fantasize that 14A will keep Trump from running. Why do the Dems have such an obsession to keep Trumpoff the ballot while at the same time they say he can't win?  They should be welcoming his participation if they believe their own story.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

1 minute ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Its not how what specifically works?

 

Show me legal precedent where a President was tried and acquited by Congress and then indicted for participating in the same crime after leaving office. 

There is no legal precedent for what is happening now, not in this country anyway. 
 

The number of ‘public servants’ dedicating their career to finding creative ways of charging this one guy with crime is unprecedented. 

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

There is no legal precedent for what is happening now, not in this country anyway. 
 

The number of ‘public servants’ dedicating their career to finding creative ways of charging this one guy with crime is unprecedented. 

Don't kid yourself. This is NOT about 'one guy'. This is a trial balloon for what's sure to follow.

[ChiGoose]

4 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Its not how what specifically works?

 

Show me legal precedent where a President was tried and acquited by Congress and then indicted for participating in the same crime after leaving office. 

 

It's generally accepted that double jeopardy does not attach in an impeachment. Here's an DoJ memo on it from 2000:

 

Whether a Former President May Be Indicted and Tried for the Same Offenses for Which He was Impeached by the House and Acquitted by the Senate

 

"The Constitution permits a former President to be indicted and tried for the same offenses for which he was impeached by the House of Representatives and acquitted by the Senate.

 

Memorandum Opinion for the Attorney General

 

We have been asked to consider whether a former President may be indicted and tried for the same offenses for which he was impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate.1 In 1973, in a district court filing addressing a related question in the criminal tax evasion investigation of Vice President Agnew, the Department took the position that acquittal by the Senate creates no bar to criminal prosecution. A 1973 Office of Legal Counsel (“ OLC” ) memorandum discussing the same question adopted the same position. As far as we are aware, no court has ever ruled on this precise issue. During the impeachment of Judge Alcee Hastings in the late 1980s, though, a district court and both the House and Senate passed on the related question whether an acquittal in a criminal prosecution should bar an impeachment trial for the same offenses. Each of those bodies concluded that the Constitution permits an official to be tried by the Senate for offenses of which he has been acquitted in the courts. Although we recognize that there are reasonable arguments for the opposing view, on balance, and largely for some of the same structural reasons identified in the United States’s filing in the Agnew case and the 1973 OLC memorandum, we think the better view is that a former President may be prosecuted for crimes of which he was acquitted by the Senate. Our conclusion concerning the constitutional permissibility of indictment and trial following a Senate acquittal is of course distinct from the question whether an indictment should be brought in any particular case."

[The Frankish Reich]

29 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Smith's J6 charges are double jeopardy as defined in A5.  "Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be put in jeopardy of life or limb."

The January 6 impeachment did not put Trump in "jeopardy of life or limb." He wasn't going to executed or have his probing fingers lopped off. The only legal effect would have been to disqualify him from serving as president again.

7 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

It's generally accepted that double jeopardy does not attach in an impeachment. Here's an DoJ memo on it from 2000:

 

Whether a Former President May Be Indicted and Tried for the Same Offenses for Which He was Impeached by the House and Acquitted by the Senate

 

"The Constitution permits a former President to be indicted and tried for the same offenses for which he was impeached by the House of Representatives and acquitted by the Senate.

 

Memorandum Opinion for the Attorney General

 

We have been asked to consider whether a former President may be indicted and tried for the same offenses for which he was impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate.1 In 1973, in a district court filing addressing a related question in the criminal tax evasion investigation of Vice President Agnew, the Department took the position that acquittal by the Senate creates no bar to criminal prosecution. A 1973 Office of Legal Counsel (“ OLC” ) memorandum discussing the same question adopted the same position. As far as we are aware, no court has ever ruled on this precise issue. During the impeachment of Judge Alcee Hastings in the late 1980s, though, a district court and both the House and Senate passed on the related question whether an acquittal in a criminal prosecution should bar an impeachment trial for the same offenses. Each of those bodies concluded that the Constitution permits an official to be tried by the Senate for offenses of which he has been acquitted in the courts. Although we recognize that there are reasonable arguments for the opposing view, on balance, and largely for some of the same structural reasons identified in the United States’s filing in the Agnew case and the 1973 OLC memorandum, we think the better view is that a former President may be prosecuted for crimes of which he was acquitted by the Senate. Our conclusion concerning the constitutional permissibility of indictment and trial following a Senate acquittal is of course distinct from the question whether an indictment should be brought in any particular case."

Exactly.

Which is why a sitting president can't be criminally charged UNTIL he is removed from office by impeachment.

This is Trump's primary "legal" defense now (the scare quotes because it is more practical than legal): if I am reelected/inaugurated, all criminal charges must be dropped immediately or at a minimum be held in abeyance unless/until I am removed from office, die, or complete my term.

He announced his candidacy just as it became obvious that criminal charges were coming.

[The Frankish Reich]

22 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

You can test it, have some body with standing move to disbar Trump. But that could have been done two years ago. Nothing relevant has changed in that time. So it feels a bit HashtagResistance-y and the latest in a line of "one weird tricks."

You know what it is?

It's a turnabout is fair play scheme.

Trump's "throw the election back to the states, nothing in the constitution expressly precludes the VP from rejecting a slate of electors" theory was the same type of thing. "That which is not expressly prohibited is therefore allowed."

So if a state with a Democratic Secretary of State and/or legislature and/or governor says "Trump supported an insurrection, hence he cannot be on our ballot and cannot receive our electoral votes" well, who is John Eastman to complain?

[T master]

Well that is for sure what all this BS is about isn't it ? They are pulling so much BS out of their A** to try to keep him from being able to run again & that just tells you exactly how scared they are of him getting in again & the people seeing what is actually better for them instead of what is now .

 

Question - Did he actually tell those Adults/jack asses that went down to the capital and did what they did to actually tell them - you need to go down there & break into the capital and physically take over the building & all who occupy it ?

 

Was there something to the accusation of Pelosi telling the police to stand down or to not stop them from coming in to make it look worse than what it was & to let some of those folks in ? Then was there ever anything brought up of the officer that shot & killed a unarmed person climbing in a window as part of this foolish bunch of BS ? She was a true physical threat that for sure .

 

This will continue as long as he is around, They will continue to find the people such as the DA Bragg, DA Fani Willis & who ever else they can dig up to bring anything no matter how big or small against him to keep him from running in true corrupt gov't form .

 

But it is like anything else in todays overly sensitive world there are those that consider bible verses HATE Speech, use to be sticks and stones will break my bones but NAMES will never hurt me yet today if anyone is to utter the word ***** you can in some states got to jail .

 

So this entire process to keep him from being able to be appointed as the GOP's person to lead them comes down to a lot of non common sense & a over sensitive US population that is drinking the Kool-aid and the more they try they just show us all how actual stupid is as stupid does .

[ChiGoose]

1 minute ago, The Frankish Reich said:

You know what it is?

It's a turnabout is fair play scheme.

Trump's "throw the election back to the states, nothing in the constitution expressly precludes the VP from rejecting a slate of electors" theory was the same type of thing. "That which is not expressly prohibited is therefore allowed."

So if a state with a Democratic Secretary of State and/or legislature and/or governor says "Trump supported an insurrection, hence he cannot be on our ballot and cannot receive our electoral votes" well, who is John Eastman to complain?

 

This is probably right. Though I'll note that the 14th Amendment plan has some actual legal basis, even if it isn't overwhelmingly convincing. 

[Irv]

55 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

I'm not looking for anyone to save us from Trump. Democratic voters continue to do that over and over and over again since 2016 and that won't change in 2024 when pissed off women, young people and independents come out against Conald Trump.

 

But tell me - what is the purpose of the Constitution?

 

 

 

When not serving as the supreme law of the land, the Constitution is what Democrats wipe their asses with when they run out of toilet paper.  What a dumb thread.  What a mess.  

[T master]

Of course Enrique Tarrio is going to say what he is now saying because he doesn't want to except the blame for his own stupidity so he will do what every one else does to save his ass from spending 33 yrs in prison & that's blaming Trump .

 

Then Nasib Hasson could quite possibly be one of the squads recommendations to be Enrique's lawyer because of the hatred they have not only for the US but for them & their own personal agenda . Just a thought .

 

When a POS all of the sudden turns their statements & who they followed from what it was to a 180 to put the blame on someone else it is very apparent that they are trying to save their own ass & don't care what or who they have to bring down in order to do it kind of like when the fake dossier was created full of lies to move the agenda forward anything goes ...

[BillStime]

10 minutes ago, Irv said:

 

When not serving as the supreme law of the land, the Constitution is what Democrats wipe their asses with when they run out of toilet paper.  What a dumb thread.  What a mess.  

 

lmao, listen to the F your feelings crowd...

 

Donald Trump pissed ALL over the Constitution and the cult shittt all over the Capitol.

 

 

 

 

 

[Irv]

6 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

lmao, listen to the F your feelings crowd...

 

Donald Trump pissed ALL over the Constitution and the cult shittt all over the Capitol.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's funny.  You tell me Republicans ignore the Constitution?   What does the Second Amendment say?  

 

 

[BillStime]

2 minutes ago, Irv said:

 

That's funny.  You tell me Republicans ignore the Constitution?   What does the Second Amendment say?  

 

 

 

Nothing about it being acceptable to overturn an election by any means... and piss n shitt all over the Constitution and Capitol.

 

 

 

 

59 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

hey should be welcoming his participation if they believe their own story.

 

Because it is about principle; not Trump over country like it is for you.

 

 

[Irv]

2 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

Nothing about it being acceptable to overturn an election by any means... and piss n shitt all over the Constitution and Capitol.

 

 

 

 

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

 

Edited August 30, 2023 by Irv

[BillStime]

Just now, Irv said:

 

What does the Second Amendment say? 

 

What relevance does it have to this discussion?

 

 

[Irv]

Just now, BillStime said:

 

What relevance does it have to this discussion?

 

 

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[BillStime]

Just now, Irv said:

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

And?

 

lmao - jfc

[Irv]

5 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

And?

 

lmao - jfc

 

Nice.  Wipe your ass with the Constitution and then finish it off by taking the Lord's name in vain.  What a mess.  

[BillStime]

Just now, Irv said:

 

Nice.  Wipe your ass with the Constitution and then finish it off by taking the Lord's name in vain.  What a mess.  

 

You're a mess.

 

 

[49er Fan]

1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Because idiots think just claiming it was an insurrection 100 times makes it one and fantasize that 14A will keep Trump from running. Why do the Dems have such an obsession to keep Trumpoff the ballot while at the same time they say he can't win?  They should be welcoming his participation if they believe their own story.

The two most prominent advocates of the 14th Amendment clause barring Trunp from running again are conservative legal scholars affiliated with the Federalist Society — William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas.

 

Trunp will never stop running - when he loses in 2024 he’ll try again in 2028 and raise plenty of money doing it.  People will vote for him when he’s dead because those same people won’t believe that he’s dead.