Ed Is Trump disqualified from the ballot by the 14th Amendment?

jt512

Philosopher
jt512
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
5,087
The New York Times is reporting that "two prominent conservative law professors have concluded that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to be president under a provision of the Constitution that bars people who have engaged in an insurrection from holding government office." According to the professors, he can not even appear on ballots, and any state election official who allows him to can be sued.

The Washington Post has published two opinion pieces largely siding with this view, and one of the pieces states that it "now seems inevitable" that this challenge to Trump's eligibility will be tested by the Supreme Court.

Media all over the political spectrum are reporting on this, and none that I have seen are calling the idea wrong.

Sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/trump-jan-6-insurrection-conservatives.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e-14th-amendment-unconstitutional-presidency/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/08/17/dangers-of-trump-disqualification/
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-could-disqualified-running-2024-supreme-court-1819108
 
Sure, local election committees could leave Trump off the ballot.

That would assure that Republicans would do the same for Biden where they can, triggering a wave of lawsuits.

I think election workers have enough to do already.
 
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.
 
Orphia Nay said:
Sounds good, although I have a question.

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


No. Not according to the law professors who wrote the article. Under the 14th Amendment, anyone is barred from holding office if they took an oath of office and subsequently engaged in an insurrection. There is nothing in the Amendment requiring a criminal conviction.
 
jt512 said:
Amazingly blinded by ideology.
Click to expand...


Thinking that they know what the constitution would let them do is exactly what the election workers in Coffee county did and what they will probably serve prison time for

And everything a member of the Federalist Society does is politically motivated
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
Thinking that they know what the constitution would let them do is exactly what the election workers in Coffee county did and what they will probably serve prison time for

And everything a member of the Federalist Society does is politically motivated
Click to expand...


I greatly admire the way you have engaged with the substance of the authors' arguments.
 
jt512 said:
No. Not according to the law professors who wrote the article. Under the 14th Amendment, anyone is barred from holding office if they took an oath of office and subsequently engaged in an insurrection. There is nothing in the Amendment requiring a criminal conviction.
Click to expand...

That is one of the dumbest things I've heard in a long time regarding the law.

So, OK. How do we determine whether a person engaged in an insurrection?

If I simply declare that So-and-So engaged in an insurrection, is that sufficient grounds to bar them from holding office? A conviction, you say, is not necessary. So what is necessary? For any random person to accuse someone of having engaged in an insurrection?

There has to be due process. That's just blindingly obvious.
 
jt512 said:
No. Not according to the law professors who wrote the article. Under the 14th Amendment, anyone is barred from holding office if they took an oath of office and subsequently engaged in an insurrection. There is nothing in the Amendment requiring a criminal conviction.
Click to expand...
That sounds like a great idea. If you don't want somebody to run for POTUS then say that they "engaged in an insurrection" (conviction not necessary - just the accusation will do).
 
psionl0 said:
That sounds like a great idea. If you don't want somebody to run for POTUS then say that they "engaged in an insurrection" (conviction not necessary - just the accusation will do).
Click to expand...

On the other hand....perfectly fine to declare candidature just to escape criminal liability.
 
Susheel said:
On the other hand....perfectly fine to declare candidature just to escape criminal liability.
Click to expand...

And crime to such an extent that the sheer number of charges and/or co-conspirators, and the mountain of evidence, require years to conduct a trial. Or trials. This could be something of a boon for Donnie Two Scoops. And I'm not convinced yet that the Orange Mange doesn't have a frightful chance at squatting in the WH again.
 
The 14th amendment also has a "Due Process Clause" which states that:

...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.[
Click to expand...
Similarly, the 5th Amendment states:
No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Click to expand...
There has to be a formal legal process to determine whether a person "engaged in an insurrection" under the due process clauses of the constitution.

If anyone wants to read the full 126-page argument, I found it:

https://shorturl.at/diAIZ

(Orphia Nay beat me to it)
 
Like everything else Trump did that was "against the Rules", the response would be, 'Yeah? What is someone going to do to stop me?"

Emoluments 14th Amendment? Who ever heard of that before?
 
Orphia Nay said:
The 126-page paper is here:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751

I haven't read it all.
Click to expand...

It's very long, but here's the first paragraph of the 'Conclusion' on page 124:

Conclusion
Despite its long slumber, Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is alive and in force. It remains fully legally operative. It is constitutionally self-executing—that is, its command is automatically effective, directly enacted by the Constitution itself. And it is sweeping: It sweeps over earlier and inconsistent constitutional provisions. It sweeps in a broad range of conduct attacking the authority of the United States. And it sweeps in a broad category of former oath-swearing officeholders turned insurrectionists or aiders and comforters of insurrection or rebellion. It is enforceable by anybody whose duties provide occasion for judging legal eligibility for office. Indeed, each of these actors has a duty to faithfully apply Section Three. All possess legitimate constitutional interpretive authority to construe and apply this constitutional prohibition, many of them independently of other actors, including courts.
Click to expand...

So he's saying that "anybody whose duties provide occasion for judging legal eligibility for office" has the "authority to construe and apply this constitutional prohibition" "independently ... of other actors, including courts."

Good luck with that. :covereyes
 
Puppycow said:
It's very long, but here's the first paragraph of the 'Conclusion' on page 124:



So he's saying that "anybody whose duties provide occasion for judging legal eligibility for office" has the "authority to construe and apply this constitutional prohibition" "independently ... of other actors, including courts."

Good luck with that. :covereyes
Click to expand...


Sounds more like a prescription for Democrats to get disqualified because the local cops found a freshly busted taillight on their car m
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom