Is Trump eligible to run for President? Absolutely 100% NO!
Will he be allowed to? Probably.
I really hope not. You’d think it’d be difficult for a rational person to argue that Trump did not incite a rebellion on January 6th, but then again, we’re dealing with the folks who believe Jewish space lasers are a thing.
Yeah seems the best defense is that it is rarely used, which IMO is idiotic. It's rarely used because presidents generally aren't openly traitors to democracy and then try to run again.
I bet the case would have looked impossible for Nixon if he had tried, despite what Trump has done is way way worse than Watergate. Watergate is just what Trump does routinely and then brags about.
Jewish space lasers? I've been believing in the wrong conspiracies!
I hope not. Trump's plan is some seriously scary shit.
We all KNOW he is guilty and ineligible, but I feel like asking courts to disqualify someone who hasn't been found guilty (yet) of a crime to be premature.
Personally being found guilty of a crime isn't the standard the Constitution lays out in section 3 of the 14th amendment though. Did his actions give aid or comfort to Enrique Tarrio or the other J6 insurrectionists who have been found guilty of seditious conspiracy? To my reading, that triggers disqualification.
The courts can't disqualify him either, they can recognize him as having already been disqualified (or not).
I think that will be part of the case, but maybe with a different level of burden of evidence than a criminal case has.
I’d rather see him defeated on a technicality vs. him not being defeated at all, because then I doubt we will ever see the end of him, period.
If anyone is able to use the 14th amendment against Trump, republicans won't stop attempting to use it against Democrats (using the "or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" part) until the end of time. Or at least until the end of this generation of politicians.
I'm not saying anyone should stop using it in this legitimate situation, I'm just girding myself for what the next step will be.
The law can make the distinction between an overt act and inaction.
The language of the 14th seems to require a decision to act in a certain way. It does not appear to punish negligence.
Likewise, operating within the prescribed duties of the office could not be considered a violation. So diplomatic visits to an "enemy" would not trigger these clauses for example. Similarly, executing the laws as passed by congress would not be a violation, like sending aid to a foreign nation.
However, forming a militia to attack congress to prevent the transfer of power to the next president isn't part of the prescribed responsibilities of a president by the constitution.
There are current 2 efforts to impeach Biden. They both admit they have no specific charges to bring, but are doing it anyway. The actual law means nothing because while experts debate whether its actually possible they just work to normalize it until a chunk of the citizenry demands it loudly.
The flaw in your argument is that Republicans will only misuse and abuse a legal argument if the Democrats use it first. Regardless of whether the 14th is invoked against Trump, the Republicans will attempt to do so in any case that they have the slightest chance of succeeding or when there is no chance, but can successfully be used as a distraction/manipulation of their base. The fact that conversations of the 14th are now occurring is already enough that Republicans will make use of it any chance they get. And you can be damned sure that they won't be the least bit concerned about "will the Democrats use this against us too?"
Such a great point. See for example the whole supposed precedent of not letting a president appoint a new justice to the Supreme Court in the last year of their presidency. Republicans loved tossing that one out during Obamas final year but when RBG passed away just a month or so before the election they rushed Amy Coney Barett through confirmation.
Republican elected officials, when given the chance to play dirty, always do. Regardless of whether it sets a precedent or not. This isn’t even playing dirty - Trump pretty flagrantly - committed treason or at least assisted those who did - just like a 25 year old can’t be president, trump can’t be president.
Well fuckin said
100%.
The R's have no problem curb stomping anything in order to win.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A watchdog group is suing to remove Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot, saying he violated the constitution and is disqualified from holding future office.
Two prominent conservative legal scholars recently authored a lengthy law review article arguing that Trump is disqualified from holding office under the 14th amendment.
“The bottom line is that Donald Trump ‘engaged in insurrection or rebellion’ and gave ‘aid or comfort’ to others engaging in such conduct, within the original meaning of those terms as employed in section 3 of the 14th amendment,” William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St Thomas wrote in their 126-page article, which traces the history and original understanding of the amendment.
The DC-based group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew), is representing six Colorado voters – who are either Republican or unaffiliated with a political party – seeking to remove Trump from their state’s ballot in next year’s general election.
“If the very fabric of our democracy is to hold, we must ensure that the Constitution is enforced and the same people who attacked our democratic system not be put in charge of it,” said Crew’s president, Noah Bookbinder, in a statement on Wednesday.
Last year, Crew represented New Mexico residents who successfully sued to remove their county commissioner, Couy Griffin, who participated in the January 6 riot.
The original article contains 482 words, the summary contains 230 words. Saved 52%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Dumb question: wouldn't a person have to be convicted of a crime equivalent to insurrection or rebellion for this to pan out? Otherwise it theoretically could be applied unjustly in other instances.
The case is stronger with a conviction, for sure, but the amendment doesn't say 'convicted of' in it. So it wouldn't seem it is strictly necessary.
Defeating Trump with a technicality would mean we'd never hear the end of it. He's insufferable enough as it is
A technicality would been like if the Republicans were about forcing the release of his tax returns in 2016.
This is about the opposite of a technicality.
Just respond to the whiners with "well, MAYBE don't have a traitor be your presidential candidate next time."
That would be a blow for Bidens reelection campaign, because he's a clear favorite against Trump, but an underdog against any other Republican candidate.
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News