Is Trump disqualified from the ballot by the 14th Amendmend?

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It would be interesting if enough blue (and purple if needed) states banned Trump from running that he could not reach a majority of EC delegates.

TEASE!

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Republicans in Congress could vote to disregard any slate of electors from states that did not allow Trump to run. Thereby reducing the number of electoral votes required to win the election. You only need 270 to win if all 50 states have electors that are counted.

Quite possibly, but only if the states that allow Trump to run give him the majority. It didn't happen in 2020. If this were a threat, the bluest states would be smart to let Trump be on their tickets.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Did you refuse to name the clause so that nobody can argue against you or because the clause doesn't exist?

I didn't refuse to name the clause. Are you so ignorant that you think that a clause quoted in linked articles (that you havre refused to read) by the NYT, WaPo, Newsweek, and Time Magazine is made up...by all four publications?

[jt512]

dup.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by theprestige

You doubt that campaigning for office is a human right?

No. It's not a human right. There are legal restrictions on who can run for office, such as age, place of birth, and having never previously violated your oath to uphold the Constitution by engaging in insurrection.

Quote:

You doubt that people have the right to see the person the elected assume the office to which they elected him?

Sure, provided that they elect someone legally entitled to hold the office.

Quote:

Yes, and my point is that preventing someone from campaigning for office, or assuming office once elected, should be based on fairly strict scrutiny, not mere accusation or allegation.

As I'm sure it will be.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

This is just a roundabout way of saying that—as with any other finding made by an officer of the executive—that if Trump is accused of being an insurrectionist, he has access to due process and someone else will decide it. No, he doesn't have to contest it...

Yes, he does have to contest it. If, say, California, refuses to put him on the ballot, and he doesn't challenge that decision in court, then he won't be on the ballot in California.

[Orphia Nay]

This has already happened!

Quote:

SANTA FE — A New Mexico judge ordered Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin be removed from office, effective immediately, ruling that the attack on the Capitol was an insurrection and that Griffin’s participation in it disqualified him under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. This decision marks the first time since 1869 that a court has disqualified a public official under Section 3, and the first time that any court has ruled the events of January 6, 2021 an insurrection.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/ne...-insurrection/

Quote:

Subsequent to his 2022 conviction for the trespassing charge, a suit was filed by the group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), and the residents of New Mexico under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution that would bar him from holding a public office for life due to his participation in insurrection.

Following the Disqualification Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, District Court Judge Francis J. Mathew removed Griffin from public office on September 6, 2022, due to his participation in insurrection. The debarment from holding public office for insurrection is "for life", he may never hold a public office again unless the debarment is overruled by a higher court or an Act of Congress. Removal of Griffin from his office marked the first instance of a democratically-elected official being disqualified from holding public office under the constitutional provision since the disqualification of the socialist, Victor Berger, in 1919 by a special committee of Congress.

Griffin appealed the case to the New Mexico Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds in November, and reaffirmed this dismissal in February 2023.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Couy_Griffin

Wasn't convicted of insurrection.
"Griffin was found guilty on the trespassing charge, but was acquitted of the disorderly conduct charge. He was sentenced to 14 days in jail (that was satisfied by time served), a $3000 fine, 60 days of community service, and supervised release for a duration of one year."

[jt512]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

This seems overwrought. I've seen discussion since shortly after Jan. 6, 2021 over whether the 14th Amendment would bar Trump (and others, e.g., Missouri's Josh Hawley) from holding office. Granted I have an interest in legal matters, but the suggestion that this clause is "hardly known" and that its implications of "completely escaped" public notice doesn't ring true to me.

As far as I can tell, you seem to be the only one in the thread who was aware of the clause. Everyone else seems to have been surprised to hear of it, and one especially ignorant poster even accused me of having made it up.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by jt512

I didn't refuse to name the clause. Are you so ignorant that you think that a clause quoted in linked articles (that you havre refused to read) by the NYT, WaPo, Newsweek, and Time Magazine is made up...by all four publications?

Regardless of your spat with Psion, sometimes these guys all use the same source for their stories so it could and does happen.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Republicans in Congress could vote to disregard any slate of electors from states that did not allow Trump to run. Thereby reducing the number of electoral votes required to win the election. You only need 270 to win if all 50 states have electors that are counted.

Do you have a source for this. Isn't it akin to what Trump tried to pull off?

[Orphia Nay]

More news outlets are talking about this.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...ce-ever-again/

https://www.latimes.com/politics/new...ntial-politics

From the LA Times:

Quote:

Challenges likely will come toward the end of this year and early next year, as the deadlines hit for candidates to file for the ballot, and could dominate the early months of the primary season.

“People are not anticipating how pervasive these will be,” said Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller, an election law expert.

Whether the efforts succeed is anyone’s guess; the legal issues are complex and without clear precedents and could lead to a Supreme Court showdown early in the new year.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

This has already happened!

Quote:

SANTA FE — A New Mexico judge ordered Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin be removed from office, effective immediately, ruling that the attack on the Capitol was an insurrection and that Griffin’s participation in it disqualified him under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. This decision marks the first time since 1869 that a court has disqualified a public official under Section 3, and the first time that any court has ruled the events of January 6, 2021 an insurrection.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/ne...-insurrection/

Quote:

Subsequent to his 2022 conviction for the trespassing charge, a suit was filed by the group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), and the residents of New Mexico under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution that would bar him from holding a public office for life due to his participation in insurrection.

Following the Disqualification Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, District Court Judge Francis J. Mathew removed Griffin from public office on September 6, 2022, due to his participation in insurrection. The debarment from holding public office for insurrection is "for life", he may never hold a public office again unless the debarment is overruled by a higher court or an Act of Congress. Removal of Griffin from his office marked the first instance of a democratically-elected official being disqualified from holding public office under the constitutional provision since the disqualification of the socialist, Victor Berger, in 1919 by a special committee of Congress.

Griffin appealed the case to the New Mexico Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds in November, and reaffirmed this dismissal in February 2023.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Couy_Griffin

Wasn't convicted of insurrection.
"Griffin was found guilty on the trespassing charge, but was acquitted of the disorderly conduct charge. He was sentenced to 14 days in jail (that was satisfied by time served), a $3000 fine, 60 days of community service, and supervised release for a duration of one year."

To add to this, from July 2023:

"At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to be disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868."

https://www.citizensforethics.org/re...ualifications/

[jt512]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

More news outlets are talking about this.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...ce-ever-again/

https://www.latimes.com/politics/new...ntial-politics

From the LA Times:

It seems like the media is suddenly waking up to this story. In fact, it looks like this could be the beginning of an exponential increase in media coverage. I would not be surprised that if within the next few days most news outlet were talking about it.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by jt512

Yes, he does have to contest it. If, say, California, refuses to put him on the ballot, and he doesn't challenge that decision in court, then he won't be on the ballot in California.

Agreed. I see how you misunderstood what I mean by, "He doesn't have to contest it." So I'll say it differently and explain why I said it.

I mean that anyone who is presented with an administrative finding that affects him can choose just to accept it. He isn't obliged to challenge it, and I can think of a number of examples—depending on the import of the finding—when someone might not consider it worthwhile to do so: you can just pay the fine for the traffic ticket (although that is technically a summons); or you can decide to hold your protest or get married elsewhere if one county clerk denies the request; or you can decide that going to court in Wyoming to be qualified for its whopping three electoral votes isn't as cost-effective as it would be in, say, California.

The proposition that some (if not outright many) administrative findings are not challenged court might lead some to wrongly assume their finality. Your authors' statement that an election administrator can "independently" determine Trump's eligibility under the 14th Amendment seems to have invoked this misconception. I wasn't trying to say anything any more profound than that.

[ahhell]

I thought this was going to be totally stupid and partisan hackery, I see the point though. They aren't wrong, the issue is that a lot of folks don't see it as insurrection.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by ahhell

I thought this was going to be totally stupid and partisan hackery, I see the point though. They aren't wrong, the issue is that a lot of folks don't see it as insurrection.

I think the issue is a lot of folks don't think you can just declare "insurrection!" and start invalidating candidates.

It's not like bankruptcy.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

Sounds good, although I have a question.

Wouldn't he have to be convicted of insurrection before this applies?

He's only been charged so far.

Officers who fought on the side of the Confederacy were not convicted of insurrection, but were considered ineligible to run for Federal office.

I think if Trump was at the Capital on 1/6 and took part in the rioting, there may be a case to be made. Lucky for him the Secret Service took him back to the White House instead. Against his demands.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Do you have a source for this. Isn't it akin to what Trump tried to pull off?

Electoral Count Act, and its subsequent update, allows for Congress to challenge the validity of an electoral slate and reject it if 51% of the House and Senate vote to do do. So basically all slates would currently go through since no party controls both houses. Republican-controlled states could refuse to certify Biden as eligible and Democrat states refuse to certify Trump as eligible. However if we play this game I think Biden wins as Republicans have more governors but Democrats have more electoral seats by state.

Either way, it would be a serious cluster fudge of insanity.

[shemp]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It would be interesting if enough blue (and purple if needed) states banned Trump from running that he could not reach a majority of EC delegates.

The states that did would be ones that he probably wouldn't win anyway. There's also the question of whether he would be eligible to win a state with write-in votes.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Officers who fought on the side of the Confederacy were not convicted of insurrection, but were considered ineligible to run for Federal office.

I think if Trump was at the Capital on 1/6 and took part in the rioting, there may be a case to be made. Lucky for him the Secret Service took him back to the White House instead. Against his demands.

That referred only to 'high ranking' officers and individuals, not all officers.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

That referred only to 'high ranking' officers and individuals, not all officers.

I imagine that's the basic intent, but high rank is not mentioned in the amendment; rather it states that the disqualification is for those who had previously made an oath of loyalty to the Constitution.

So as far as I can see, a person who was a private but held any Federal or State position that required an oath would be disqualified, but an officer who never worked for any government before the Confederacy would not. If rank is assumed here, it's political not military.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by bruto

I imagine that's the basic intent, but high rank is not mentioned in the amendment; rather it states that the disqualification is for those who had previously made an oath of loyalty to the Constitution.

So as far as I can see, a person who was a private but held any Federal or State position that required an oath would be disqualified, but an officer who never worked for any government before the Confederacy would not. If rank is assumed here, it's political not military.

This link lists those to whom this clause has been applied to remove them from office.

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

To add to this, from July 2023:

"At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to be disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868."

https://www.citizensforethics.org/re...ualifications/

Basically, a County Sheriff, a County Attorney, a District Attorney, 2 US Reps, a County Commissioner, and 2 are unclear.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by bruto

I imagine that's the basic intent, but high rank is not mentioned in the amendment; rather it states that the disqualification is for those who had previously made an oath of loyalty to the Constitution.

Correct. All commissioned officers in the armed forces from lieutenant upward take an oath of loyalty to the Constitution, but the amendment applies to anyone to takes such an oath as part of any office in the United States, civilian or military. I imagine that in 1866 the only advantage to a candidate having been a high-ranking officer is that it would be easier to determine as a matter of fact who he was and what his actions may have been.

[Hercules56]

I think this is an extremely divisive and possibly dangerous road to go down.

We have two impeachments. We now have 4 indictments. We will likely have at least one felony conviction before Election Day. I think thats enough.

Let the American people decide if they want this felonious psychotic imbecile running the country again.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

I think this is an extremely divisive and possibly dangerous road to go down.

We have two impeachments. We now have 4 indictments. We will likely have at least one felony conviction before Election Day. I think thats enough.

No no no no no no no! Its not "enough" to slap his pee pee. If he commited crimes, he needs to answer to them and face the consequences. If he partook in an insurrection, he should be barred, per the Constitution. He gets no free pass for a particularly heinous offense against the country.

Quote:

Let the American people decide if they want this felonious psychotic imbecile running the country again.

The masses seldom choose right. Trump harnessed the bigotry and stupidity of a lot of voters, who then voted against their own interests and the collective interests of our nation. The Rise of the Stupid is over. Stupid voted in a buffoon. Thr buffoon appears to have committed multiple crimes. If these crimes exclude him from running again, well, we value the terms of the Constitution, no?

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Thermal

No no no no no no no! Its not "enough" to slap his pee pee. If he commited crimes, he needs to answer to them and face the consequences. If he partook in an insurrection, he should be barred, per the Constitution. He gets no free pass for a particularly heinous offense against the country.

The masses seldom choose right. Trump harnessed the bigotry and stupidity of a lot of voters, who then voted against their own interests and the collective interests of our nation. The Rise of the Stupid is over. Stupid voted in a buffoon. Thr buffoon appears to have committed multiple crimes. If these crimes exclude him from running again, well, we value the terms of the Constitution, no?

2 Federal indictments, NEITHER of which charged Trump with Insurrection, which is an actual crime in the US Code.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?...%20under%20the

If the Department of Justice decided there is not enough evidence to charge and convict Trump with Insurrection, and thereby banning him from Federal office, maybe we should trust them.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Thermal

....The masses seldom choose right....

Many Kings, Queens, Dictators and Emperors have felt the same way.

We pay them no mind.

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

2 Federal indictments, NEITHER of which charged Trump with Insurrection, which is an actual crime in the US Code.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?...%20under%20the

If the Department of Justice decided there is not enough evidence to charge and convict Trump with Insurrection, and thereby banning him from Federal office, maybe we should trust them.

A criminal conviction has to meet the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps the DoJ didn't think there was a case provable beyond a reasonable doubt (although there are other reasons not to bring an indictment).

But there are other standards: preponderance of the evidence (>50%) in a civil trial, for instance, and the 14th Amendment does not specify which standard. So the DoJ not indicting Donald criminally for insurrection doesn't preclude invoking the 14th Amendment.

[Hercules56]

If say California bans Trump from the ballot, Red states will go ahead and ban Biden from the ballot, claiming that the flood of illegal migrants from the south is an insurrection that Biden is assisting.

Trump will be banned from Blue state ballots, Biden on Red state ballots.

Then Congress will probably vote to disquality ALL electoral slates claiming they were unjust or unfair, and then Congress votes for President with each state getting one vote, and there are more Red than Blue states. Trump wins.

Is that how we want to do this???

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Paul2

A criminal conviction has to meet the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps the DoJ didn't think there was a case provable beyond a reasonable doubt (although there are other reasons not to bring an indictment).

But there are other standards: preponderance of the evidence (>50%) in a civil trial, for instance, and the 14th Amendment does not specify which standard. So the DoJ not indicting Donald criminally for insurrection doesn't preclude invoking the 14th Amendment.

Whatever.

This is a foolish, petty and dangerous idea.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

2 Federal indictments, NEITHER of which charged Trump with Insurrection, which is an actual crime in the US Code.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?...%20under%20the

If the Department of Justice decided there is not enough evidence to charge and convict Trump with Insurrection, and thereby banning him from Federal office, maybe we should trust them.

Trust them? No. Never. And I don't know their reasoning in not trying him, as they have charged those acting on his instruction. Not enough evidence? Doubt it. Prosecution would promote civil unrest? [Insert Drake meme].

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Trust them? No. Never. And I don't know their reasoning in not trying him, as they have charged those acting on his instruction. Not enough evidence? Doubt it. Prosecution would promote civil unrest? [Insert Drake meme].

I believe only one or two of the rioters were actually charged with insurrection, the Oath Keeper people. And nobody has ever suggested that they acted as part of a conspiracy under orders or direction from Trump himself.

[Hercules56]

I'm starting to get the feeling that this new push to disqualify Trump from the ballot is because they don't think Biden can beat him fair and square.

And that would be a very bad reason to do this. Bad and terribly transparent.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

If the Department of Justice decided there is not enough evidence to charge and convict Trump with Insurrection, and thereby banning him from Federal office, maybe we should trust them.

There is no "thereby."

The standard of proof for a criminal conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2383 is reasonable doubt. All the commentators who are actual criminal lawyers I've heard discuss this with respect to Trump's actions on Jan. 6 agree that the Dept. of Justice is conservatively seeking only charges upon which it believes it has evidence it can prove beyond reasonable doubt. The absence of insurrection charges from any federal indictment so far is suitable evidence that the government believes it is unlikely to obtain a conviction under that statute.

However, a determination that Trump is ineligible as President under the 14th Amendment for acts of insurrection does not require a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2383. The determination is initially made by the election official in each state. It is reviewable under each state's law (and ultimately in the Supreme Court), but the standard of proof here is merely preponderance of evidence. An administrative law court is free to find that a preponderance of evidence exists that Trump committed an act of insurrection on or before Jan. 6 within its interpretation of the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

I can draw a parallel to various administrative decisions in my state. Kidnapping is a first-degree felony in my state. A person charged with kidnapping receives an automatic administrative decision on the basis of the indictment alone that he is ineligible to serve as a foster or adoptive parent. Even if he is acquitted under the criminal statute, he must still challenge the administrative finding of unfitness as a foster or adoptive parent in administrative court, and that finding may be upheld under administrative law if the court finds that a preponderance of evidence (albeit not evidence beyond reasonable doubt) still exists that the appellant committed acts that render him ineligible.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

I'm starting to get the feeling...

...terribly transparent.

Wow, we went from "feelings" to "transparent[ly]" bad in just a couple of sentences.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

I believe only one or two of the rioters were actually charged with insurrection, the Oath Keeper people. And nobody has ever suggested that they acted as part of a conspiracy under orders or direction from Trump himself.

A lot of people have suggested exactly that. Something about a little speech he made directing them to stop a lawful certification where the public was not permitted, which, as has been discussed here, is definitionally a type of insurrection.

Doesn't really matter though. He walks "free" on bail and we have to play the hand we are dealt. If I ran the zoo, he would never have breathed free air again after January 6th. If it were up to his fellators, he would already have been appointed God King.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

There is no "thereby."

The standard of proof for a criminal conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2383 is reasonable doubt. All the commentators who are actual criminal lawyers I've heard discuss this with respect to Trump's actions on Jan. 6 agree that the Dept. of Justice is conservatively seeking only charges upon which it believes it has evidence it can prove beyond reasonable doubt. The absence of insurrection charges from any federal indictment so far is suitable evidence that the government believes it is unlikely to obtain a conviction under that statute.

However, a determination that Trump is ineligible as President under the 14th Amendment for acts of insurrection does not require a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2383. The determination is initially made by the election official in each state. It is reviewable under each state's law (and ultimately in the Supreme Court), but the standard of proof here is merely preponderance of evidence. An administrative law court is free to find that a preponderance of evidence exists that Trump committed an act of insurrection on or before Jan. 6 within its interpretation of the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

I can draw a parallel to various administrative decisions in my state. Kidnapping is a first-degree felony in my state. A person charged with kidnapping receives an automatic administrative decision on the basis of the indictment alone that he is ineligible to serve as a foster or adoptive parent. Even if he is acquitted under the criminal statute, he must still challenge the administrative finding of unfitness as a foster or adoptive parent in administrative court, and that finding may be upheld under administrative law if the court finds that a preponderance of evidence (albeit not evidence beyond reasonable doubt) still exists that the appellant committed acts that render him ineligible.

So you're saying that since Biden may not beat him fair & square on Election Day we should instead ban him from even running. I guess those polls showing his GOP support growing with each indictment has you scratching your head.

[jond]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

I believe only one or two of the rioters were actually charged with insurrection, the Oath Keeper people. And nobody has ever suggested that they acted as part of a conspiracy under orders or direction from Trump himself.

What Trump has done, repeatedly, is promise pardons for them. Surely, that counts as providing aid and comfort to them, which is part of the clause in question.

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Whatever.

This is a foolish, petty and dangerous idea.

It may be foolish, petty, and dangerous, but not because we need to trust the DoJ in its decision not to indict Trump criminally for insurrection.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by jond

What Trump has done, repeatedly, is promise pardons for them. Surely, that counts as providing aid and comfort to them, which is part of the clause in question.

If the blue States disqualify Trump then the red States will disqualify Biden.

Won't that be fun?