the 14th Amendment case to bar Trump is much stronger than you think!

QP!

QP!

Verified User
Previously I argued this was very unlikely, not because the 14th Amendment does not lay out grounds for disqualification, Trump met, but because i assumed, the SC would require a criminal conviction on insurrection to be the bar for enacting it. To ensure partisan actors in the future could not just use this to block anyone from running they did not like.

Both History and current cases of using this Amendment demonstrate factually that actions can and have been taken without any criminal prosecution for insurrection by the party barred from running.

So i do not think the SC will simply read in a new requirement (thus amending the Constitution by judicial fiat) a new requirement of legal conviction when the founders of that article clearly did not intend that and instead they SC will have to decide what will suffice. And in the terms of what has sufficed for prior people barred from running who were not convicted the case against Trump is far stronger and worse for him.

- Trump had the head of the Senate (republican Mitch McConnell, and the head of the HOuse, Kevin McCarthy) BOTH state an insurrection took place and that Trump had responsible for it and was to blame. This is arguably the strongest non legal government rebuke one could get. So again, if you accept a legal finding (court conviction) is not need, then this is just about the highest bar you can otherwise get.

- In two of Trump's current prosecutions it is alleged Trump tried to overthrow the results of an election (meaning if they let him run and he wins but the conviction follows he would have to be removed via the Constitution)



The case for Donald Trump’s disqualification under the 14th Amendment
July 18, 2023


...Like other constitutional qualifications based on age, residency, and citizenship, Section 3 is enforceable through civil lawsuits challenging a candidate’s eligibility to hold office. And courts have disqualified individuals under Section 3 who played far less substantial roles in insurrections than Trump. Couy Griffin, a former New Mexico county commissioner who was a grassroots mobilizer for a “battle” to stop the certification process and a member of Trump’s mob on January 6th, was disqualified after CREW successfully represented New Mexico residents in a lawsuit to enforce his constitutional disqualification. During Reconstruction, officials who previously held local government positions in Confederate states were also adjudicated to be disqualified. The 14th Amendment does not require a criminal conviction for disqualification, and many who were disqualified were not found guilty of any crimes.

If their conduct passed the bar for constitutional disqualification, then Trump’s conduct surely does....

..As CREW lays out in our new report, there is overwhelming evidence that Trump not only engaged in the January 6th insurrection, but was its central cause:

- Trump spread knowingly false claims of a “stolen” and “rigged” election — even after he exhausted legal challenges, the states certified his loss, and there was no lawful basis to contest the election results.

- Trump’s lie that the election was stolen propelled the “Stop the Steal” movement, which tried to exert pressure on Vice President Mike Pence and Congress to unlawfully refuse to certify the presidential election results on January 6th.

- Trump personally led an effort to pressure, coerce, and intimidate government officials — including Pence, state election officials, and Department of Justice officials — to help him unlawfully overturn the election results.

- Through social media and grassroots Stop the Steal mobilizers, Trump summoned a violent mob of tens of thousands of his supporters–including now-convicted seditionists and members of extremist groups such as the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys — to travel to Washington, D.C. for a “wild” protest on January 6th.

- Once his mob was assembled on January 6th, Trump incited them to “fight like hell” to overturn the election results by marching to the Capitol to “stop the steal,” knowing that many were armed, adorned in tactical gear, and prepared for violence.

- After learning the Capitol was under attack, Trump poured fuel on the fire, targeting Pence for lacking the “courage” to overturn the election in a tweet that measurably caused the mob to surge.

- Trump failed to act for nearly three hours as his mob ransacked the United States Capitol, brutally assaulted police officers, and called for the murder of elected officials. He failed to deploy a federal response to protect the United States Capitol or call off his mob despite his constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” and his role as Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military, including the D.C. National Guard.

- Instead of intervening to defend the Capitol, Trump tried to enlist members of Congress to deliver on the mob’s goal to delay the election certification.


“Donald Trump is the living embodiment of the threat that the Fourteenth Amendment’s framers sought to protect American democracy against when they barred constitutional oath-breakers from office.”
Click to expand...



the challenge the SC will have as avowed Originalists, is that they cannot simply read in a new requirement for 'legal conviction' that the Framers never intended and that has not been required in the past for such removals or disqualifications. And that instead leaves the SC to determine boundaries and thresholds for how this can be bounded outside the law, or in a political arena.

As i see it, there is only one real out they could subscribe that would be a higher threshold than Trump already got in the House and Senate citations stating he was responsible for the insurrection and that would be an impeachment and conviction. The problem that the SC would have with that, is that people who are not in office have been barred via the 14th. Meaning, lets say this was Hillary doing an insurrection after the 2016 loss, they could not impeach her due to her not being the Office holder, but they could still use the 12th bar her from any future runs as there is no requirement the person to be an office holder.

So that means the very highest bar, outside legal prosecution is what Trump already got and thus any boundary ther SC would be below that.


I now move the odds of the SC barring him to 70/30 unless they want to be completely hypocritical and go against their Originalist claimed beliefs and read in to the Constitution a new clause that 'requires conviction'.
 
zymurgy said:
comical

sounds like one of the idiots promising Rittenhouse would hang
Click to expand...

Different standards of proof. Rittenhouse’s conviction needed a unanimous “beyond a reasonable doubt”. The 14th is silent on any criminal conviction. It is also silent on how a particular state would have him removed from a ballot.
 
domer76 said:
Different standards of proof. Rittenhouse’s conviction needed a unanimous “beyond a reasonable doubt”. The 14th is silent on any criminal conviction. It is also silent on how a particular state would have him removed from a ballot.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court would remove him from the ballot if it rendered him ineligible. The Court is also a sticking point with its Right leaning bias and three Trump nominees.
 
martin said:
The Supreme Court would remove him from the ballot if it rendered him ineligible. The Court is also a sticking point with its Right leaning bias and three Trump nominees.
Click to expand...

True. However, they are ‘supposedly’ originalists, who ‘supposedly’ adhere to the exact wording of the Constitution. Notice, however, my use of the word ‘supposedly’.
 
domer76 said:
Different standards of proof. Rittenhouse’s conviction needed a unanimous “beyond a reasonable doubt”. The 14th is silent on any criminal conviction. It is also silent on how a particular state would have him removed from a ballot.
Click to expand...

^comical

sounds like one of the idiots promising Rittenhouse would hang
 
QP! said:
Previously I argued this was very unlikely, not because the 14th Amendment does not lay out grounds for disqualification, Trump met, but because i assumed, the SC would require a criminal conviction on insurrection to be the bar for enacting it. To ensure partisan actors in the future could not just use this to block anyone from running they did not like.

Both History and current cases of using this Amendment demonstrate factually that actions can and have been taken without any criminal prosecution for insurrection by the party barred from running.

So i do not think the SC will simply read in a new requirement (thus amending the Constitution by judicial fiat) a new requirement of legal conviction when the founders of that article clearly did not intend that and instead they SC will have to decide what will suffice. And in the terms of what has sufficed for prior people barred from running who were not convicted the case against Trump is far stronger and worse for him.

- Trump had the head of the Senate (republican Mitch McConnell, and the head of the HOuse, Kevin McCarthy) BOTH state an insurrection took place and that Trump had responsible for it and was to blame. This is arguably the strongest non legal government rebuke one could get. So again, if you accept a legal finding (court conviction) is not need, then this is just about the highest bar you can otherwise get.

- In two of Trump's current prosecutions it is alleged Trump tried to overthrow the results of an election (meaning if they let him run and he wins but the conviction follows he would have to be removed via the Constitution)







the challenge the SC will have as avowed Originalists, is that they cannot simply read in a new requirement for 'legal conviction' that the Framers never intended and that has not been required in the past for such removals or disqualifications. And that instead leaves the SC to determine boundaries and thresholds for how this can be bounded outside the law, or in a political arena.

As i see it, there is only one real out they could subscribe that would be a higher threshold than Trump already got in the House and Senate citations stating he was responsible for the insurrection and that would be an impeachment and conviction. The problem that the SC would have with that, is that people who are not in office have been barred via the 14th. Meaning, lets say this was Hillary doing an insurrection after the 2016 loss, they could not impeach her due to her not being the Office holder, but they could still use the 12th bar her from any future runs as there is no requirement the person to be an office holder.

So that means the very highest bar, outside legal prosecution is what Trump already got and thus any boundary ther SC would be below that.


I now move the odds of the SC barring him to 70/30 unless they want to be completely hypocritical and go against their Originalist claimed beliefs and read in to the Constitution a new clause that 'requires conviction'.
Click to expand...

No, no it's not. It's just the next illegal thing Democrats are floating to try and cheat the next election.

They're always doing things like this. :dunno:

The "Interstate Popular Vote Compact" for one, which is blatantly UnConstitutional.

Every politician that signed onto that should be removed from office for violating their Oath of Office.

If laws were followed and enforced, they would be.
 
Matt Dillon said:
No, no it's not. It's just the next illegal thing Democrats are floating to try and cheat the next election.

They're always doing things like this. :dunno:

The "Interstate Popular Vote Compact" for one, which is blatantly UnConstitutional.

Every politician that signed onto that should be removed from office for violating their Oath of Office.

If laws were followed and enforced, they would be.
Click to expand...

In fact, that is how you eliminate cheating in the next election, Trump went to court 60 tims and got more recounts than any candidate ever asked for. He proved we had a fair and honest election. When he found the courts would not allow him to overthrow the country peacefully, he decided to use a violent insurrection.
Trump will cheat like hell.
 
QP! said:
Previously I argued this was very unlikely, not because the 14th Amendment does not lay out grounds for disqualification, Trump met, but because i assumed, the SC would require a criminal conviction on insurrection to be the bar for enacting it. To ensure partisan actors in the future could not just use this to block anyone from running they did not like.

Both History and current cases of using this Amendment demonstrate factually that actions can and have been taken without any criminal prosecution for insurrection by the party barred from running.

So i do not think the SC will simply read in a new requirement (thus amending the Constitution by judicial fiat) a new requirement of legal conviction when the founders of that article clearly did not intend that and instead they SC will have to decide what will suffice. And in the terms of what has sufficed for prior people barred from running who were not convicted the case against Trump is far stronger and worse for him.

- Trump had the head of the Senate (republican Mitch McConnell, and the head of the HOuse, Kevin McCarthy) BOTH state an insurrection took place and that Trump had responsible for it and was to blame. This is arguably the strongest non legal government rebuke one could get. So again, if you accept a legal finding (court conviction) is not need, then this is just about the highest bar you can otherwise get.

- In two of Trump's current prosecutions it is alleged Trump tried to overthrow the results of an election (meaning if they let him run and he wins but the conviction follows he would have to be removed via the Constitution)







the challenge the SC will have as avowed Originalists, is that they cannot simply read in a new requirement for 'legal conviction' that the Framers never intended and that has not been required in the past for such removals or disqualifications. And that instead leaves the SC to determine boundaries and thresholds for how this can be bounded outside the law, or in a political arena.

As i see it, there is only one real out they could subscribe that would be a higher threshold than Trump already got in the House and Senate citations stating he was responsible for the insurrection and that would be an impeachment and conviction. The problem that the SC would have with that, is that people who are not in office have been barred via the 14th. Meaning, lets say this was Hillary doing an insurrection after the 2016 loss, they could not impeach her due to her not being the Office holder, but they could still use the 12th bar her from any future runs as there is no requirement the person to be an office holder.

So that means the very highest bar, outside legal prosecution is what Trump already got and thus any boundary ther SC would be below that.


I now move the odds of the SC barring him to 70/30 unless they want to be completely hypocritical and go against their Originalist claimed beliefs and read in to the Constitution a new clause that 'requires conviction'.
Click to expand...


What court has found him guilty of that?
 
Nordberg said:
In fact, that is how you eliminate cheating in the next election, Trump went to court 60 tims and got more recounts than any candidate ever asked for. He proved we had a fair and honest election. When he found the courts would not allow him to overthrow the country peacefully, he decided to use a violent insurrection.
Trump will cheat like hell.
Click to expand...

No dipshit, just no. But you keep advocating for your own serfdom, ok?

Fuckin' retard.
 
Nordberg said:
In fact, that is how you eliminate cheating in the next election, Trump went to court 60 tims and got more recounts than any candidate ever asked for. He proved we had a fair and honest election. When he found the courts would not allow him to overthrow the country peacefully, he decided to use a violent insurrection.
Trump will cheat like hell.
Click to expand...

Your memory is fuzzy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top