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

QP! said:
.

I could and should have asked you why as i doubt it will change you repeating the same thing. Facts that go against what you want to believe, have not been something you have shown interest in.
Click to expand...

It is unclear what is needed to be done. It will take court action either way because Trump would appeal any action by democrats.

From your link


It is unclear whether Section 3 is self-executing, which, if it is not, would leave federal and state courts or election authorities without power to determine the eligibility of candidates unless Congress enacts legislation to permit it. Courts have produced mixed results on this question. Section 3 does not expressly provide a procedure for its implementation other than Section 5’s general authority of Congress “to enforce [the Fourteenth Amendment] by appropriate legislation.” There might be multiple ways Congress could enforce the Disqualification Clause, including relying on federal criminal prosecution for insurrection and treason, allowing private civil enforcement through writs of quo warranto or other procedures, enacting new legislation establishing general procedures for adjudicating disqualification under Section 3 or for identifying specific disqualified individuals, or unicameral measures by the House or Senate to exclude or expel individuals from their respective houses. What follows is a discussion of a sampling of these alternatives and the novel legal questions they would pose.
As previously mentioned, prosecutions for insurrection under 18 U.S.C. § 2383 or treason under 18 U.S.C. § 2381, if successful, would result in a bar to “holding any office of the United States.” Consequently, any individuals convicted under those laws for engaging in activities related to the eventsof January 6 could be disqualified from holding current or future federal office without any specific congressional response to the events and without regard to whether they had previously taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. To date, it does not appear that the Department of Justice has brought any charges under these two statutes in connection with the events of January 6.
Alternatively, an injured private party could ask a judge to issue a writ of quo warranto to prevent the seating of, or to oust from office, an individual who allegedly engaged in disqualifying activities. Although it is unclear who would have standing to bring such a suit, it is possible that opposing candidates or individuals eligible to hold the office in question could survive this constitutional, prudential inquiry. In a recent Fourth Circuit decision, the court found that individuals who had petitioned the state board of elections to prevent Representative Madison Cawthorn from appearing on the ballot had standing to appeal the injunction against the board due to their rights under state law to challenge his candidacy before the board. Other court challenges to congressional candidacy based on the Disqualification Clause brought by private litigants have largely failed.
Congress could also enact new legislation to enforce Section 3 in the aftermath of January 6, much like it did in response to the Civil War. Congress initially provided enforcement of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment through enactment of the First Ku Klux Clan Act in 1870. Section 14 of that Act directed the district attorney in each district in which a potentially disqualified person held office to file a writ of quo warranto against the office-holder before a judge. Section 15 of the act made it a misdemeanor for a person disqualified under the Fourteenth Amendment to hold state or federal office, enforcement of which required a court conviction. However, after two years, Congress reversed course by providing amnesty from the disqualification under the First Ku Klux Klan Act through enactment of the Amnesty Act in 1872. Congress passed the Amnesty Act by more than a two-thirds vote in accordance with the Disqualification Clause. The Ku Klux Klan Act provisions no longer appear in the U.S. Code, and Congress has not since exercised its authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to enact legislation providing a general procedure for the executive and judicial branches to determine who is subject to the bar on holding office.
In contrast to general procedural legislation akin to the Ku Klux Klan Act, there is some debate as to whether Congress can enact a law naming specific individuals subject to disqualification. As is discussed in another Legal Sidebar, some argue that Congress has that right under Section 3, while others counter that such a measure might conflict with the constitutional prohibition on bills of attainder. The Supreme Court has described a bill of attainder as “a law that legislatively determines guilt and inflicts punishment upon an identifiable individual without provision of the protections of a judicial trial.” It is unclear whether legislation to implement Section 3 is subject to the constitutional prohibition on bills of attainder or was instead intended as a constitutional exception to it. Whether disqualification from holding office constitutes punishment for the purposes of the Bill of Attainder Clause is also unclear. Due to these uncertainties, legislation that specifically identifies individuals for disqualification would likely result in litigation.
Click to expand...
 
Uncensored2008 said:
DERP

Make America GREAT - this puts us at WAR with you and your fellow fascists.

After all, you don't want to make America great. You want America to fall and disappear from history.



Energy independence, making NATO pay their fair share, holding China to account for predatory trade practices, securing the border, particularly the brilliant "remain in Mexico" policy.

To name just a few.



Trump well achieved an amazing amount in his four short years. Xi's man Biden has destroyed all that and more. Burning a house down happens much faster than building it.

You of the fascist left are dedicated to the destruction of the Republic.
Click to expand...

You misunderstood my question. When you talk about MAGA, which past era of America does the “Again” aspect of the slogan represent?
 
ptif219 said:
See you know the Democrats are dointhis to interfere in the election just like communist would do
Click to expand...

Don't be retarded. Trump has been doing criminal stuff for decades. Which is more likely: that the lifelong criminal is finally facing consequences for his crimes, or that magical forces conspire to keep the saintly Donald Trump from saving America? Get real.
 
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...

The amendment certainly excludes Trump from running but I'm not so sure he should be excluded. He is going to lose.

Former Speaker Paul Ryan says Republicans will lose if Donald Trump is nominee
“I think leaders should endeavor to be honest, ethical, moral people who try to set standards for themselves and lead by example across the country," "Donald Trump doesn’t try to do any of that. He does the opposite, frankly. So I just don't think he's fit for the job here.” - Paul Ryan

Ryan said in the swing states, including Wisconsin, the election will come down to winning over suburban voters. “Do you think those suburban voters like Donald Trump more since Jan. 6?" "I mean, good grief. They didn’t vote for him this last time, they’re not going to vote for him again.”
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wir...-ryan-republicans-lose-donald-trump-103514088
Click to expand...

When major players in your party like Ryan (along with republicans like Mitt Romney and Liz Cheaney) are saying Trump is unfit to serve, there is going to be a significant number of Republicans who will believe them and not vote for Trump. A significant number is more than enough to cost the republicans the election. Why eliminate him from the election when he is a sure fire loser who will take with him many more republicans in congress?
 
ptif219 said:
It is unclear what is needed to be done. It will take court action either way because Trump would appeal any action by democrats.

From your link
Click to expand...

No one is saying Trump, or anyone else cannot avail themselves of the courts AFTER a ruling. In America there is nothing you cannot sue over and ask a court to consider, if you are subject to any form of sanction. NOTHING.


What we were arguing and i proved you wrong on was the front end of the process. You kept claiming a Court finding was needed FIRST, on the front end of the process for them to act and use the 14th to ban him. That is wrong. You were wrong. And my link proves that as historically people have been banned with no court involved in the process. But like Trump could, they could have all went to court AFTER to challenge it.
 
America said:
Don't be retarded. Trump has been doing criminal stuff for decades. Which is more likely: that the lifelong criminal is finally facing consequences for his crimes, or that magical forces conspire to keep the saintly Donald Trump from saving America? Get real.
Click to expand...

So has Biden but you love Biden
 
QP! said:
No one is saying Trump, or anyone else cannot avail themselves of the courts AFTER a ruling. In America there is nothing you cannot sue over and ask a court to consider, if you are subject to any form of sanction. NOTHING.


What we were arguing and i proved you wrong on was the front end of the process. You kept claiming a Court finding was needed FIRST, on the front end of the process for them to act and use the 14th to ban him. That is wrong. You were wrong. And my link proves that as historically people have been banned with no court involved in the process. But like Trump could, they could have all went to court AFTER to challenge it.
Click to expand...

False accusations are not proof. I showed you wrong from your article
 
ptif219 said:
False accusations are not proof. I showed you wrong from your article
Click to expand...

So at least now you are admitting you were wrong.

What you are saying now 'I, ptif, do not believe the accusations' and you seem to think that has some meaning. It does not.

That will be up to State AG's and other to assess and apply or not the 14th Amendment based on their process. Trump of others can then sue based on whatever action is taken. If Trump is banned via the 14th, he will sue. If Trump is not banned, others will sue. Either way the Supreme court then has to define parameters and that is where Trump will be in trouble.

No one can suggest parameters that the SC could suggest that would be a higher bar or worse than what Trump has already been cited with, which is both the House Leader and Senate Leader labeling him as responsible for Jan6th Insurrection and thus defying his oath of office.

So now you are admitting you were wrong that a legal ruling was required to act, we can move past that.
 
Into Тhe Night;5803839 said:
If that's true, then I hope Biden gets punished. But right now, most people are focused on Trump because he's a thousand times worse.
Click to expand...

Biden is far worse than Trump. Biden did treason by taking bribes from Ukraine oil company and China
 
QP! said:
So at least now you are admitting you were wrong.

What you are saying now 'I, ptif, do not believe the accusations' and you seem to think that has some meaning. It does not.

That will be up to State AG's and other to assess and apply or not the 14th Amendment based on their process. Trump of others can then sue based on whatever action is taken. If Trump is banned via the 14th, he will sue. If Trump is not banned, others will sue. Either way the Supreme court then has to define parameters and that is where Trump will be in trouble.

No one can suggest parameters that the SC could suggest that would be a higher bar or worse than what Trump has already been cited with, which is both the House Leader and Senate Leader labeling him as responsible for Jan6th Insurrection and thus defying his oath of office.

So now you are admitting you were wrong that a legal ruling was required to act, we can move past that.
Click to expand...

No I showed you are wrong from your link
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top