Fourteenth Amendment | Section 3 - Disqualification from Holding Office

[B-Man]

 

Colorado Lawyer Flails As Clarence Thomas
Calmly Destroys His Trump Disqualification Argument

by Shawn Fleetwood

 

By merely asking for examples, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas calmly destroyed respondents’ argument for disqualifying former President Donald Trump from Colorado’s 2024 presidential primary ballot.

 

The moment came on Thursday morning, during oral arguments on Trump’s appeal to overturn the Colorado Supreme Court’s Dec. 19 decision to keep him off the Centennial State’s 2024 primary ballot. Colorado’s highest court claimed in its ruling that the former president can be “disqualified” from holding office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment,

 

https://thefederalist.com/2024/02/08/colorado-lawyer-flails-as-clarence-thomas-calmly-destroys-his-trump-disqualification-argument/

 

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

On 8/30/2023 at 12:30 PM, ChiGoose said:

 

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.

Section 3 is pretty clear on scope.  Naming specific roles and titles covered by the section.  The President is not specifically named and a logical explanation can be made that this was intentional.  Because the Senate has jurisdiction over trials involving the President.  And J6 occured still on Trump's watch.  How can a President still in office lead a rebellion or insurrection against himself?  That said, the indiscretion could fall under some other act.

 

The other concept you avoid is due process.  A foundation of our legal system.  Self executing? Is that even a thing in our legal system?  Even a guy getting a parking ticket can request a hearing before a judge. But for high crimes it's a short cut from accusation to punishment bypassing the legal process inbetween.

 

I expect SCOTUS will avoid any blanket ruling and will more or less say the State of Colorado has no standing to bar Trump from the ballot.

 

[ChiGoose]

17 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Section 3 is pretty clear on scope.  Naming specific roles and titles covered by the section.  The President is not specifically named and a logical explanation can be made that this was intentional.  Because the Senate has jurisdiction over trials involving the President.  And J6 occured still on Trump's watch.  How can a President still in office lead a rebellion or insurrection against himself?  That said, the indiscretion could fall under some other act.

 

The other concept you avoid is due process.  A foundation of our legal system.  Self executing? Is that even a thing in our legal system?  Even a guy getting a parking ticket can request a hearing before a judge. But for high crimes it's a short cut from accusation to punishment bypassing the legal process inbetween.

 

I expect SCOTUS will avoid any blanket ruling and will more or less say the State of Colorado has no standing to bar Trump from the ballot.

 

 

 

Section 3 is not clear on scope. That's why a good amount of the SCOTUS hearing was about its scope and whether or not the President is an officer. It doesn't seem to make sense that the drafters wanted to ban basically anyone who held an office and committed an insurrection *except* the president. Self-coups are a thing and seems like they should apply here.

 

The applicable level of due process for this is also unclear. In this case, there was a lawsuit in a Colorado district court in which Trump had an opportunity to present his case. The case then went to the Colorado Supreme Court where again Trump presented his case. Finally, the case went to SCOTUS, where Trump was also able to present his case. While I don't think it's super clear on what the standard for due process should be here, it's not like Trump was denied opportunity to present his case.

 

Self-executing is a pretty common thing in the legal system. It's simply that no further actions are required for something to go into effect. In this context, the debate is whether the 14th Amendment requires Congress to establish a procedure for preventing an insurrectionist from holding office or if the text of the Amendment itself is sufficient. On the whole, it seems like it's self-executing but the language being unclear in certain areas makes applying it difficult.

 

I expect SCOTUS will rule in Trump's favor but I'm curious as to what the actual holding will be. If a state (which establishes its own rules on ballot qualification) cannot enforce 14§3, then who can? Requiring Congress to act effectively would make the provision non-existent due to the political nature of the body.

[All_Pro_Bills]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

 

 

Section 3 is not clear on scope. That's why a good amount of the SCOTUS hearing was about its scope and whether or not the President is an officer. It doesn't seem to make sense that the drafters wanted to ban basically anyone who held an office and committed an insurrection *except* the president. Self-coups are a thing and seems like they should apply here.

 

The applicable level of due process for this is also unclear. In this case, there was a lawsuit in a Colorado district court in which Trump had an opportunity to present his case. The case then went to the Colorado Supreme Court where again Trump presented his case. Finally, the case went to SCOTUS, where Trump was also able to present his case. While I don't think it's super clear on what the standard for due process should be here, it's not like Trump was denied opportunity to present his case.

 

Self-executing is a pretty common thing in the legal system. It's simply that no further actions are required for something to go into effect. In this context, the debate is whether the 14th Amendment requires Congress to establish a procedure for preventing an insurrectionist from holding office or if the text of the Amendment itself is sufficient. On the whole, it seems like it's self-executing but the language being unclear in certain areas makes applying it difficult.

 

I expect SCOTUS will rule in Trump's favor but I'm curious as to what the actual holding will be. If a state (which establishes its own rules on ballot qualification) cannot enforce 14§3, then who can? Requiring Congress to act effectively would make the provision non-existent due to the political nature of the body.

I hear what you're saying but even in the event of a self-executing section of the Constitution there still appears to be prerequisites missing.  And that is the establishment of insurrection and the guilt of a specific party, in this case Trump, in that act. To date I'm not aware of either.

 

As this was established as the result of the Civil War its pretty clear how it applies in that case.  Articles of succession, military conflict, war, etc., and those that participating in those events  How it applies to J6 is less clear.  Some might say there's no such thing as a coincidence and in this case my curiosity is peaked by the constant references to J6 as "the biggest threat to our democracy since the Civil War" from day one.  Its almost like there was a "plan" immediately in place to use an interpretation of A14.S3 that could and would be applied years later in legal/political actions against J6ers and Trump. 

 

Personally, making a review of history I think Pearl Harbor and WW2 were the biggest threats to our democracy since the Civil War, maybe the Cuban Missile Crisis next.

Edited February 9 by All_Pro_Bills

[ChiGoose]

49 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

I hear what you're saying but even in the event of a self-executing section of the Constitution there still appears to be prerequisites missing.  And that is the establishment of insurrection and the guilt of a specific party, in this case Trump, in that act. To date I'm not aware of either.

 

As this was established as the result of the Civil War its pretty clear how it applies in that case.  Articles of succession, military conflict, war, etc., and those that participating in those events  How it applies to J6 is less clear.  Some might say there's no such thing as a coincidence and in this case my curiosity is peaked by the constant references to J6 as "the biggest threat to our democracy since the Civil War" from day one.  Its almost like there was a "plan" immediately in place to use an interpretation of A14.S3 that could and would be applied years later in legal/political actions against J6ers and Trump. 

 

Personally, making a review of history I think Pearl Harbor and WW2 were the biggest threats to our democracy since the Civil War, maybe the Cuban Missile Crisis next.

 

It doesn't appear that the amendment requires a criminal conviction of insurrection, just that the person in question was involved in one. Ideally, they would have spelled out how that determination is made, but they didn't; so instead we have courts making that determination. So far, courts have found that he meets that qualification of engaging in insurrection. Different courts have different opinions on the other requirements, but I think basically all of them reached the same conclusion on engaging in insurrection.

 

I don't buy the coincidence theory here. What the media says doesn't have much bearing on the courts (and the media very often gets things wrong). If there was some grand plan to disqualify Trump or otherwise prevent him from taking office, it would have happened immediately after he left office, not several years later. 

 

From where things stand, it seems fairly likely that none of the cases about Trump's indictments will be resolved before the election. They may not even begin before then. If Trump was eligible to be disbarred by the 14th Amendment, he was eligible at noon on January 20th, 2021, yet this action was brought within the last few months.

 

If there is some secret group coordinating to stop him through legal means then they really suck at it.

Edited February 9 by ChiGoose

[All_Pro_Bills]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

If there is some secret group coordinating to stop him through legal means then they really suck at it.

I just think the Democratic leadership are much smarter and proficient at planning and thinking ahead than the Republican leadership (if such a group exists).  Based on that edge I believe they have the competentency, will, and the way, plus the need and motivation to coordinate the various court cases and the State ballot actions to remove Trump.

 

I might be giving them too much credit but I'm sticking with the idea for now.

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

I just think the Democratic leadership are much smarter and proficient at planning and thinking ahead than the Republican leadership (if such a group exists).  Based on that edge I believe they have the competentency, will, and the way, plus the need and motivation to coordinate the various court cases and the State ballot actions to remove Trump.

 

I might be giving them too much credit but I'm sticking with the idea for now.

I think you’re giving them too much credit. If you know anyone involved in Dem politics I’d suggest asking them how competent and smart Dem leadership is. 

[BillStime]

24 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

I think you’re giving them too much credit. If you know anyone involved in Dem politics I’d suggest asking them how competent and smart Dem leadership is. 

The bar couldn’t be any lower for GOP leadership. They are simply not intelligent.

 

Now the electorate (R&D) - that’s an entirely different story.

[Doc]

We know Colorado (and every other state trying it) will lose.  The only question is whether this will be unanimous or not.

[Buffarukus]

 

13 minutes ago, BillStime said:

The bar couldn’t be any lower for GOP leadership. They are simply not intelligent.

 

Now the electorate (R&D) - that’s an entirely different story.

 

And yet they have to resort to such desperate tactics to beat this "low bar" and are losing in the polls?

 

It should tell you somthing

 

But it wont.

[BillStime]

Just now, Buffarukus said:

 

 

And yet they have to resort to such desperate tactics to beat this "low bar" and are losing in the polls?

 

It should tell you somthing

 

But it wont.

Which tactic? 
 

And polls? RED WAVE will never stop haunting you…

 

 

[Buffarukus]

4 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Which tactic? 
 

And polls? RED WAVE will never stop haunting you…

 

 

 

Removing the leading canidate from the ballot?

 

Nicki haley still lost the primary to "noone"

 

Having a clearly biased jan 6th  trial on national tv that did nothing to change anyones mind. 

 

Changing NY statute of limitations.

 

Waiting until election season to file charges that were obviously held back  because everyone knows they are interested in a media smear campaign for the headlines, not justice.

 

Win or lose...this is the most pathetic way to beat a political opponent. A "low bar" one as you put it.

 

 

 

[BillStime]

Just now, Buffarukus said:

 

Removing the leading canidate from the ballot?

 

Nicki haley still lost the primary to "noone"

 

Having a clearly biased jan 6th  trial on national tv that did nothing to change anyones mind. 

 

Changing NY statute of limitations.

 

Waiting until election season to file charges that were obviously held back  because everyone knows they are interested in a media smear campaign for the headlines, not justice.

 

Win or lose...this is the most pathetic way to beat a political opponent. A "low bar" one as you put it.

 

 

 

Wait - you think the United States should sweep what happened on January 6 under the rug?

 

What happened on January 6th was TRUMP’S TACTIC.

 

JFC there are so many idiots here.

[BillStime]

Meanwhile - you want to see a fkn tactic?

 

The Trump family received $2 BILLION dollars and you freaks gotta pathetic Biden Corruption thread for $20 fkn million?

 

 

pathetic 

[Buffarukus]

3 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Wait - you think the United States should sweep what happened on January 6 under the rug?

 

What happened on January 6th was TRUMP’S TACTIC.

 

JFC there are so many idiots here.

 

 

 

Lol. Hundreds tracked down and arrested.

 

Impeachment proceeded against the man. Which lost 

 

A full "hearing" showing it all on prime time television.

 

Years go by not a charge brought. just cnn and your threads crying about it nonstop.

 

Which part of this 4 years were "swept under the rug"?  Where were the formal charges all this time? Right.

 

Proceed with your manufactured outrage over it. Everyone else sees it for what it was.

4 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Meanwhile - you want to see a fkn tactic?

 

The Trump family received $2 BILLION dollars and you freaks gotta pathetic Biden Corruption thread for $20 fkn million?

 

 

pathetic 

 

Not under any dillusion the people in politics are corrupt.

 

Look at ALL their stock portfolios alone. Its clear.

 

What of it? 

[BillStime]

2 minutes ago, Buffarukus said:

 

 

 

Lol. Hundreds tracked down and arrested.

 

Impeachment proceeded against the man. Which lost 

 

A full "hearing" showing it all on prime time television.

 

Years go by not a charge brought. just cnn and your threads crying about it nonstop.

 

Which part of this 4 years were "swept under the rug"?  Where were the formal charges all this time? Right.

 

Proceed with your manufactured outrage over it. Everyone else sees it for what it was.

 

You are forgetting about all the events and moves Trump made leading up to and after Jan 6.

 

Trump doesn’t belong anywhere near the White House.

 

And last:

 

[Doc]

20 minutes ago, Buffarukus said:

Lol. Hundreds tracked down and arrested.

 

Impeachment proceeded against the man. Which lost 

 

A full "hearing" showing it all on prime time television.

 

Years go by not a charge brought. just cnn and your threads crying about it nonstop.

 

Which part of this 4 years were "swept under the rug"?  Where were the formal charges all this time? Right.

 

Proceed with your manufactured outrage over it. Everyone else sees it for what it was.

 

Not under any dillusion the people in politics are corrupt.

 

Look at ALL their stock portfolios alone. Its clear.

 

What of it? 

 

They're just whining and crying because no State will be allowed to keep Trump off the ballot after SCOTUS rules shortly in his favor, probably unanimously. 

[Buffarukus]

 

1 hour ago, BillStime said:

 

You are forgetting about all the events and moves Trump made leading up to and after Jan 6.

 

Trump doesn’t belong anywhere near the White House.

 

And last:

 

 

 

its a bit unsettling to know a terrorist who plots and executes a plan to "destroy democracy and this country" can just walk around freely for 4 years. 

 

im sure the russians and iranians are very pleased. Try to destroy america and they will only be judged by left wing media pundits for years. Just dont run in the general election.  Lol. 

 

 

Edited February 10 by Buffarukus

[Buffarukus]

14 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

They're just whining and crying because no State will be allowed to keep Trump off the ballot after SCOTUS rules shortly in his favor, probably unanimously. 

 

This month they are mad that republicans wont let them build a wall and they cant remove the top political rival from voters choice.

 

Not a single thought that this all is a non issue with good policy from a competent administration. Not one. instead flail around on pure desperation tactics and hope for the best.

[BillStime]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

They're just whining and crying because no State will be allowed to keep Trump off the ballot

1 hour ago, Buffarukus said:

 

 

 

its a bit unsettling to know a terrorist who plots and executes a plan to "destroy democracy and this country" can just walk around freely for 4 years. 

 

im sure the russians and iranians are very pleased. Try to destroy america and they will only be judged by left wing media pundits for years. Just dont run in the general election.  Lol. 

 

 

Thanks for highlighting the two tiered justice system that you cult freaks cry about. 
 

1 hour ago, Buffarukus said:

im sure the russians and iranians are very pleased.

Best investment Putin ever made - paid off beyond his wildest wet dreams

 

 

39 minutes ago, Buffarukus said:

Not a single thought that this all is a non issue with good policy from a competent administration. Not one. instead flail around on pure desperation tactics and hope for the best.