Is Trump constitutionally barred from being POTUS again?

[whodeycin85]

I'm not an attorney. I've never had a course in Constitutional Law nor read a book on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. I'm not here to argue that and I suspect most of us shouldn't be here with the background to argue Constitutional Law this specifically. I simply don't know the kind of nuances of years of legal precedent and such that SCOTUS should have access to when they decide the case.

I don't care for Federal control, personally, and think states should be running elections as they see fit.

I don't want the Feds saying: no ID required when TN would prefer an ID to vote. As a matter of fact, I'd like my local election to be controlled at the local level, the state can butt out for the most part also.

Grand vol posted this in another thread

Definitely worth the read

 

[n_huffhines]

He wasn’t charged with insurrection.

And they are immune, specifically the president. No one else is because they aren’t nationally elected.

Think about it.. states elect everyone, or they’re appointed. But the president is elected nationally. They didn’t include the president in the 14th amendment because they knew a candidate would have to secure the support of northern states to win.

Except it does include the president because it says "or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State"

It also doesn't specify that Trump has to be "charged" or convicted for the court to view it as insurrection.

 

[Christian Lowe]

I'm not an attorney. I've never had a course in Constitutional Law nor read a book on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. I'm not here to argue that and I suspect most of us shouldn't be here with the background to argue Constitutional Law this specifically. I simply don't know the kind of nuances of years of legal precedent and such that SCOTUS should have access to when they decide the case.

I don't care for Federal control, personally, and think states should be running elections as they see fit.

I don't want the Feds saying: no ID required when TN would prefer an ID to vote. As a matter of fact, I'd like my local election to be controlled at the local level, the state can butt out for the most part also.

My degree and field of study is history. Before this insanity, it was explained to me that they omitted the president because the northern states would have to elect the president thus nullifying the need for the clause.

How they teach it now? I have no idea. They’re bending laws every way they can to deal with trump, so I’m sure everything I learned in college is useless now.

 

[Christian Lowe]

Except it does include the president because it says "or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State"

It also doesn't specify that Trump has to be "charged" or convicted for the court to view it as insurrection.

that’s not the whole clause. It specifically lists everything that’s ineligible except the president. That’s on purpose. That’s what every civil war historian has said, and what I was taught prior to this lunacy.


Also, if he doesn’t have to actually be guilty of insurrection, that’s an awfully dangerous precedent.

 

[n_huffhines]

that’s not the whole clause. It specifically lists everything that’s ineligible except the president. That’s on purpose. That’s what every civil war historian has said, and what I was taught prior to this lunacy.

Also, if he doesn’t have to actually be guilty of insurrection, that’s an awfully dangerous precedent.

It doesn't specifically exclude the president, and clearly that's an "office" under the "United States" so I don't think SCOTUS is bound to your interpretation. I mean, just logically speaking, if POTUS isn't mentioned at all but "any office" is...the math is easy on this one.

 

[Christian Lowe]

It doesn't specifically exclude the president, and clearly that's an "office" under the "United States" so I don't think SCOTUS is bound to your interpretation. I mean, just logically speaking, if POTUS isn't mentioned at all but "any office" is...the math is easy on this one.

Then why did they make a point to include “house representatives, senators” in the clause but not the president? Seems like a pretty purposeful omission.

And again, even if that is the case, just declaring him guilty of insurrection is insanity. A state could take any anti-government stance any politician has ever taken and use that to bar him from candidacy under your interpretation.

 

[VOLS INC.]

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

My degree and field of study is history. Before this insanity, it was explained to me that they omitted the president because the northern states would have to elect the president thus nullifying the need for the clause.

How they teach it now? I have no idea. They’re bending laws every way they can to deal with trump, so I’m sure everything I learned in college is useless now.

I've really no idea. SCOTUS can go a lot of ways but I love our system of govt and have faith, hard faith these days but still faith, that there's nothing I could replace it with that's better.

I'm just not a fan of big govt. I'm hypocritical about it because I know firsthand how much money the Feds provide to smaller govts via grants and appropriations. A LOT.

I feel it would be better if I paid much more of those taxes, controlled that money, appropriated that money at the local level, but the horse is out of the barn, across the field, and approaching the creek on that idea. That's a far different discussion.

There's no doubt 150+ years of cases, discussions, and opinions about Amendment 14, Section 3. May God Bless the SCOTUS with the wisdom to rule in the best way for the future of the country and my family.

 

[turbovol]

Then why did they make a point to include “house representatives, senators” in the clause but not the president? Seems like a pretty purposeful omission.

And again, even if that is the case, just declaring him guilty of insurrection is insanity. A state could take any anti-government stance any politician has ever taken and use that to bar him from candidacy under your interpretation.

Trying to subvert a presidential election is top of the table corruption and sedition. MAGA act like the gangster is just a jaywalker. The man doesn't respect U.S. laws or the constitution or anybody or anything. Vile human.

 

[n_huffhines]

Then why did they make a point to include “house representatives, senators” in the clause but not the president? Seems like a pretty purposeful omission.

And again, even if that is the case, just declaring him guilty of insurrection is insanity. A state could take any anti-government stance any politician has ever taken and use that to bar him from candidacy under your interpretation.

It doesn't say secretary of state, either, but that counts under "any office", does it not? They didn't name every position, but they did say "any" and there is only one way to interpret that, IMO.

Judges make decisions all the time. It's what they do. I don't think it's insanity to expect them to make a decision that the constitution seemingly leaves up to them.

The point of everything with our founding was to provide checks and balances, and all of them are imperfect, but the idea is that collectively they hopefully work together. Many people act like it's completely uncalled for Trump to get his hand slapped when he's had the most insane behavior of any president I've been alive to witness. They do have a reason. If anybody is going to get challenged, of course it's somebody as erratic and wild as Trump. I'm not saying he's done enough to be DQ'd, but I would say he's definitely done enough that he warrants a challenge. How far do you have to go before partisans would view this as a legitimate challenge? I promise you that most of the people that are maddest about it would totally flip if all this applied to Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton or Obama.

 

[SuzyVol]

it would require a USC Amendment and the odds of that are like 0.

Not sure that a constitutional amendment is necessary to effectively eliminate the electoral college. Haven't several states already agreed to apportion their electors based on the popular vote when, and if, a certain number of states agree to do the same?

 

[Orangeburst]

Not sure that a constitutional amendment is necessary to effectively eliminate the electoral college. Haven't several states already agreed to apportion their electors based on the popular vote when, and if, a certain number of states agree to do the same?

good point..sounds like a violation of the USC already

 

[hog88]

Not sure that a constitutional amendment is necessary to effectively eliminate the electoral college. Haven't several states already agreed to apportion their electors based on the popular vote when, and if, a certain number of states agree to do the same?

No.

All States, except for Maine and Nebraska, have a winner-take-all policy where the State looks only at the overall winner of the state-wide popular vote. Maine and Nebraska, however, appoint individual electors based on the winner of the popular vote within each Congressional district and then 2 "at-large" electors based on the winner of the overall state-wide popular vote.

While it is rare for Maine or Nebraska to have a split vote, each has done so twice: Nebraska in 2008, Maine in 2016, and both Maine and Nebraska in 2020.

Distribution of Electoral Votes.

 

[hog88]

good point..sounds like a violation of the USC already

It's not a good point because it isn't true.

 

[Orangeburst]

It's not a good point because it isn't true.

what isnt true? nm I see your post

 

[Christian Lowe]

Trying to subvert a presidential election is top of the table corruption and sedition. MAGA act like the gangster is just a jaywalker. The man doesn't respect U.S. laws or the constitution or anybody or anything. Vile human.

i don’t see how he did any of that. January 6th wasn’t a coup. I don’t know how you watched what I did and came to that conclusion. A bunch of unarmed, fat, old people were never going to overthrow the government. The fact cops were taking selfies with these people and walking them around just adds credence to that.

But that game can easily be turned on the left if they want to play that. I distinctly remember them egging on BLM riots in DC that had Trump in his underground bunker. That’s worse, no?

 

[Christian Lowe]

It doesn't say secretary of state, either, but that counts under "any office", does it not? They didn't name every position, but they did say "any" and there is only one way to interpret that, IMO.

Judges make decisions all the time. It's what they do. I don't think it's insanity to expect them to make a decision that the constitution seemingly leaves up to them.

The point of everything with our founding was to provide checks and balances, and all of them are imperfect, but the idea is that collectively they hopefully work together. Many people act like it's completely uncalled for Trump to get his hand slapped when he's had the most insane behavior of any president I've been alive to witness. They do have a reason. If anybody is going to get challenged, of course it's somebody as erratic and wild as Trump. I'm not saying he's done enough to be DQ'd, but I would say he's definitely done enough that he warrants a challenge. How far do you have to go before partisans would view this as a legitimate challenge? I promise you that most of the people that are maddest about it would totally flip if all this applied to Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton or Obama.

Conversely, the people supporting this would flip if it were applied to them as well. I’m not coming at this as a partisan though. I actually have concerns on what precedent this is setting. People don’t have faith in the system anymore. That doesn’t end well.

 

[n_huffhines]

Conversely, the people supporting this would flip if it were applied to them as well. I’m not coming at this as a partisan though. I actually have concerns on what precedent this is setting. People don’t have faith in the system anymore. That doesn’t end well.

I can respect your position but I also don't think it's a bad precedent to challenge someone with totally insane behavior. Trump set the precedent. This is the response to unprecedented actions. It's unprecedented territory.

 

[DynaLo]

Have y’all every actually read the Constitution and article 14?
Everyone is hyper focused on section 3 right now and seemingly ignoring this little jewel called section 5.

Section 5:​

The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.​

Don’t be surprised if section 5 is what invalidates the Colorado court decision as it very specifically delegates enforcement powers of Article 14 to Congress and not to the States nor any judiciary entity.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

 

[Septic]

My degree and field of study is history. Before this insanity, it was explained to me that they omitted the president because the northern states would have to elect the president thus nullifying the need for the clause.

How they teach it now? I have no idea. They’re bending laws every way they can to deal with trump, so I’m sure everything I learned in college is useless now.

Maybe no one ever believed that the electorate would be so stupid as to try and re-elect a twice impeached c-list tv reality realtor that absolutely encouraged a violent uprising to stop the certification of an election and bought fake electors to usurp the will of the voters.

Yet here we are.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

 

[Orangeburst]

poor Joe..he is about to be tossed in the trash heap of history by his own party and doesnt even realize it.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Have y’all every actually read the Constitution and article 14?
Everyone is hyper focused on section 3 right now and seemingly ignoring this little jewel called section 5.

Section 5:​

The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.​

Don’t be surprised if section 5 is what invalidates the Colorado court decision as it very specifically delegates enforcement powers of Article 14 to Congress and not to the States nor any judiciary entity.

That's not at all how this country works.

The clowns in Congress could, or might in a different universe, create a law SPECIFICALLY saying Jan 6 wasn't an insurrection "officially" or Trump wasn't involved "officially" or whatever. They can't just overturn a court case. SCOTUS can.

Congress, if you ever think they are useful, probably isn't.

 

[Christian Lowe]

Maybe no one ever believed that the electorate would be so stupid as to try and re-elect a twice impeached c-list tv reality realtor that absolutely encouraged a violent uprising to stop the certification of an election and bought fake electors to usurp the will of the voters.

Yet here we are.

If the media didn’t make up so much about him, perhaps people wouldn’t have such a hard time listening to the media at all about him.