Is Trump constitutionally barred from being POTUS again?

[evillawyer]

The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again

 

[85SugarVol]

The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again

What’s it say?

 

[evillawyer]

What’s it say?

Section 3 of 14th Amendment

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

 

[AirVol]

The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again

Dims have shredded what’s left of it. Don’t use it now.

 

[85SugarVol]

Section 3 of 14th Amendment

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Oh. So insurrection or rebellion.
Is that convicted of, accused of, likely guilty of?
Are any of the 4 different cases for insurrection or rebellion?

 

[evillawyer]

This is the article that's raising eyebrows about this argument.

The Sweep and Force of Section Three by William Baude, Michael Stokes Paulsen :: SSRN

 

[evillawyer]

Dims have shredded what’s left of it. Don’t use it now.

You're not watching reruns of Michelle dancing on Ellen DeGeneres this morning?

 

[volfanhill]

So this is the liberal version of “they charged him with protesting the outcome of an election”

 

[evillawyer]

So this is the liberal version of “they charged him with protesting the outcome of an election”

The article that's getting so much attention was written by a bunch of federalist society legal scholars. This is not a liberal hit job.

"Baude and Paulsen are two of the most prominent conservative constitutional scholars in America, and both are affiliated with the Federalist Society, making it more difficult for them to be dismissed as political partisans. Thus it is all the more significant and sobering that they do not hesitate to draw from their long study of the Fourteenth Amendment’s text and history the shattering conclusion that the attempted overturning of the 2020 presidential election and the attack on the Capitol, intended to prevent the joint session from counting the electoral votes for the presidency, together can be fairly characterized as an “insurrection” or “rebellion.”"

 

[evillawyer]

Oh. So insurrection or rebellion.
Is that convicted of, accused of, likely guilty of?
Are any of the 4 different cases for insurrection or rebellion?

There is no requirement for a judicial determination.

 

[turbovol]

Oh. So insurrection or rebellion.
Is that convicted of, accused of, likely guilty of?
Are any of the 4 different cases for insurrection or rebellion?

Two of them are--and of course he's guilty, just not in a court of law yet. That will come. Why would you pretend that he
didn't engage in an insurrection?

 

[hog88]

They should get the paperwork filed, let’s get this ball rolling. Less talkie and more action.

 

[Sudden Impact]

I don't know whether or not this is the solution or not, I would like to see all 4 indictments go through the process.

I have no desire to listen to Trump whine endlessly about how he was shafted.

The Democrats are not a shoo-in to win regardless of Trump as they need to change direction as well.
This country has serious problems and we need serious people to deal with them, not the old, unfit, impeach happy, criminals, privileged idiots we have in the ranks from State to Fed today.

 

[AirVol]

You're not watching reruns of Michelle dancing on Ellen DeGeneres this morning?

You mean Big Mike? Not this morning.

 

[85SugarVol]

There is no requirement for a judicial determination.

What determination is required?

 

[85SugarVol]

Two of them are--and of course he's guilty, just not in a court of law yet. That will come. Why would you pretend that he
didn't engage in an insurrection?

“Of course they’re guilty, just not in a court of law… yet”
- Turbo

^^ That sounds exactly like the kind of legal system you’d be in favor of.

 

[lawgator1]

I think that should Trump prevail then Harris should intervene in early January 2025 and recognize a different slate of electors that do not support someone who promoted and prompted the deadly 1/6/21 insurrection.

And if challenged shrug and say Trump authorized it before, didn't he?

 

[85SugarVol]

I think that should Trump prevail then Harris should intervene in early January 2025 and recognize a different slate of electors that do not support someone who promoted and prompted the deadly 1/6/21 insurrection.

And if challenged shrug and say Trump authorized it before, didn't he?

How many people died at the deadly 1/6 riot?

 

[Velo Vol]

What determination is required?

Someone has to make such a determination.

 

[evillawyer]

What determination is required?

Reading is your friend. I've linked both the Atlantic article and the preprint of the Penn Law Review article on which the Atlantic article is based.

Throwing you a bone. Cut and pasted from the UPenn article

Second. Section Three is legally self-executing. That is, Section Three’s disqualification is constitutionally automatic whenever its terms are satisfied. Section Three requires no legislation or adjudication to be legally effective. It is enacted by the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment. Its disqualification, where triggered, just is. It follows that Section Three’s disqualification may and should be followed and carried out by all whose duties are affected by it. In many cases, Section Three will give rise to judiciable controversies in the courts. In others it will be enforceable by state and federal officials. But no prior judicial decision, and no implementing legislation, is required for Section Three to be carried out by officials sworn to uphold the Constitution whose duties present the occasion for applying Section Three’s commands. Section Three is ready for use.

 

[Sudden Impact]

How many people died at the deadly 1/6 riot?

Not enough if we get to pick.
How many residual deaths will result from it?
A lot of Political careers are pending death?

 

[85SugarVol]

Someone has to make such a determination.

That’s what I’m asking.

If it’s not a judicial determination. Then who/what makes the determination?

 

[85SugarVol]

Reading is your friend. I've linked both the Atlantic article and the preprint of the Penn Law Review article on which the Atlantic article is based.

Throwing you a bone. Cut and pasted from the UPenn article

Second. Section Three is legally self-executing. That is, Section Three’s disqualification is constitutionally automatic whenever its terms are satisfied. Section Three requires no legislation or adjudication to be legally effective. It is enacted by the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment. Its disqualification, where triggered, just is. It follows that Section Three’s disqualification may and should be followed and carried out by all whose duties are affected by it. In many cases, Section Three will give rise to judiciable controversies in the courts. In others it will be enforceable by state and federal officials. But no prior judicial decision, and no implementing legislation, is required for Section Three to be carried out by officials sworn to uphold the Constitution whose duties present the occasion for applying Section Three’s commands. Section Three is ready for use.

I actually was curious. Nevermind though.

 

[EasternVol]

There is no requirement for a judicial determination.

There has to be, otherwise there's nothing on which to enforce a disqualification.

 

[Sudden Impact]

Reading is your friend. I've linked both the Atlantic article and the preprint of the Penn Law Review article on which the Atlantic article is based.

Throwing you a bone. Cut and pasted from the UPenn article

Second. Section Three is legally self-executing. That is, Section Three’s disqualification is constitutionally automatic whenever its terms are satisfied. Section Three requires no legislation or adjudication to be legally effective. It is enacted by the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment. Its disqualification, where triggered, just is. It follows that Section Three’s disqualification may and should be followed and carried out by all whose duties are affected by it. In many cases, Section Three will give rise to judiciable controversies in the courts. In others it will be enforceable by state and federal officials. But no prior judicial decision, and no implementing legislation, is required for Section Three to be carried out by officials sworn to uphold the Constitution whose duties present the occasion for applying Section Three’s commands. Section Three is ready for use.

So what you are saying is that Section 3 is SELF-EXECUTING which states and means it's obvious and should go into affect immediately? Before conviction? After conviction? with or without conviction? to be interpreted by the SCOTUS for review?