Is Trump constitutionally barred from being POTUS again?

[85SugarVol]

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

That’s what I’m asking.

“Section Three’s disqualification is constitutionally automatic whenever its terms are satisfied”.

Ok. Who/What determines that the terms are satisfied?

 

[hog88]

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?

I 100% agree.

 

[Sudden Impact]

That’s what I’m asking.

“Section Three’s disqualification is constitutionally automatic whenever its terms are satisfied”.

Ok. Who/What determines that the terms are satisfied?

Supreme Court as the interpreters of the Constitution?

 

[EasternVol]

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.

That's aimed at people who served the CSA. There were records of said service. There's no record as such of Trump's stunt on J6, it's open to interpretation.

 

[Velo Vol]

That’s what I’m asking.

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

Maybe a message will appear in the sky? "Trump engaged in an insurrection."

 

[85SugarVol]

Maybe a message will appear in the sky? "Trump engaged in an insurrection."

View attachment 570824

Sigh ok. Nevermind.

 

[Sudden Impact]

That's aimed at people who served the CSA. There were records of said service. There's no record as such of Trump's stunt on J6, it's open to interpretation.

When you have legal scholars and lawyers and judges interpreting the Constitution everything can be challenged and everything applies. Only group that would be able to interpret this would be SCOTUS, my question is how does it get initiated if it is Automatic and why hasn't it been done yet.

 

[evillawyer]

That’s what I’m asking.

“Section Three’s disqualification is constitutionally automatic whenever its terms are satisfied”.

Ok. Who/What determines that the terms are satisfied?

The way this would play out is some federal official would simply bar Trump in some way, by claiming he was disqualified. An official would refuse to put him on the ballot, perhaps. Then Trump would sue. Alternatively, a federal official could seek a declaratory judgment that Trump can be barred from the ballot. There are probably other ways it could be teed up, but these are two pretty obvious ways.

This is not a whole lot different than if a non-citizen tried to get on the ballot. The federal official could make the decision he's not qualified, and bar him from the ballot, leaving the candidate to sue, or the federal official could seek a declaratory judgment from the court declaring the candidate not qualified and permitting the exclusion

 

[Sudden Impact]

I am surprised the Republicans have not charged Biden with this.

 

[825VOL]

More stupidity on display from EL as usual. The 13th-15th Amendments are referred to as the Reconstruction Amendments. The passage you are referring to banned people who had left the Union and joined the Confederacy. This is why they used the wording "rebellion" and "insurrection".

It has been obvious since Jan 6th that the democrats have been using this the word "insurrection" for a reason even though it does not apply. It has always been an attempt to persuade the stupid and ignorant.

 

[evillawyer]

More stupidity on display from EL as usual. The 13th-15th Amendments are referred to as the Reconstruction Amendments. The passage you are referring to banned people who had left the Union and joined the Confederacy. This is why they used the wording "rebellion" and "insurrection".

It has been obvious since Jan 6th that the democrats have been using this the word "insurrection" for a reason even though it does not apply. It has always been an attempt to persuade the stupid and ignorant.

Cool argument, bro. Where's the limitation in the 14th Amendment saying it's so limited? I'm guessing you support textualism (most conservatives do). If so, you're kind of in a pickle with that argument.

 

[TNVOLNAVY]

Section 3 of 14th given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof..

Should automatically disqualify Biden

 

[rekinhavoc]

Can it be used for Maxine Waters , AOC , The Squad, and any Democrat that encouraged riots?

 

[Sudden Impact]

Can it be used for Maxine Waters , AOC , The Squad, and any Democrat that encouraged riots?

Sure it can be and may be a way to clean up the Swamp. MTG, Hawley, Cruz Jordan. We would need a Congressional Temp Hire service. Most of the Republicans will be handled in subsequent Trump Indictments.

 

[825VOL]

Cool argument, bro. Where's the limitation in the 14th Amendment saying it's so limited? I'm guessing you support textualism (most conservatives do). If so, you're kind of in a pickle with that argument.

No, I support common sense which apparently you lack.

In no way was Jan 6th the classic definition of an insurrection. Now if Trump has called in the military (he was still the commander in chief) and block Congress from transitioning power, then yes it would have been an armed insurrection. That did not happen.

You and others are just trying anything to get him blocked from running again. Just be honest that you don't care if it meets the qualifications of an insurrection or not, you just want him out of the race.

I would be just fine if he didn't run again. I have no love for Trump. I just get tired of people twisting words and definitions for their own purpose and lying about their motives and intentions.

 

[hog88]

The way this would play out is some federal official would simply bar Trump in some way, by claiming he was disqualified. An official would refuse to put him on the ballot, perhaps. Then Trump would sue. Alternatively, a federal official could seek a declaratory judgment that Trump can be barred from the ballot. There are probably other ways it could be teed up, but these are two pretty obvious ways.

This is not a whole lot different than if a non-citizen tried to get on the ballot. The federal official could make the decision he's not qualified, and bar him from the ballot, leaving the candidate to sue, or the federal official could seek a declaratory judgment from the court declaring the candidate not qualified and permitting the exclusion

Federal officials don’t decide who’s on the ballots. That is up to the individual states.

 

[evillawyer]

No, I support common sense which apparently you lack.

In no way was Jan 6th the classic definition of an insurrection. Now if Trump has called in the military (he was still the commander in chief) and block Congress from transitioning power, then yes it would have been an armed insurrection. That did not happen.

You and others are just trying anything to get him blocked from running again. Just be honest that you don't care if it meets the qualifications of an insurrection or not, you just want him out of the race.

I would be just fine if he didn't run again. I have no love for Trump. I just get tired of people twisting words and definitions for their own purpose and lying about their motives and intentions.

But now you've shifted arguments from (1) the section at issue only applies to the civil war era, to (2) January 6th wasn't an insurrection. Maybe we can debate what constitutes an insurrection, but that's a much different argument than just saying this section is now effectively dead because the civil war happened over 150 years ago.

 

[Sudden Impact]

Push the Indictments through in an Order that facilitates for the 14th Amendment.
I would think that the J6 Fed - 4 indictments would be the first to go through on a speedy timeline.
It is a cut and dry case for Trial.
The People on both sides of the Aisle need to know before the Election/Party's Convention.
People of the US are entitled to know if Trump is a viable candidate.
Trump has the opportunity to prove his innocence before the Election.
After the trial it will be clear if the 14th Amendment should be applied regardless of any Appeals.
If found guilty, then, so be it. Cleared of all charges move forward with other indictments.
I don't feel sorry for Trump he has managed to slip through the cracks to many times, he did this to himself and he will make more lives miserable on both sides of the Aisle if he is reelected. We will have yes men and woman = MTG, Gaetz and others sitting in roles that will do far more damage to this country than is warranted.

 

[Vol8188]

But now you've shifted arguments from (1) the section at issue only applies to the civil war era, to (2) January 6th wasn't an insurrection. Maybe we can debate what constitutes an insurrection, but that's a much different argument than just saying this section is now effectively dead because the civil war happened over 150 years ago.

I’m more amazed everyday by your claims to be a lawyer.

Trump has been charged by 0 courts with “insurrection” but a random official should simply claim he “participated” in an insurrection despite Trump never entering the Capitol, telling people to peacefully protest, asking them to leave and go home, etc

This is some of the dumber stuff I’ve seen you post and that really says a lot. Especially since yesterday you thought Hunter’s tax charges were being dropped

 

[Velo Vol]

Trump has been charged by 0 courts with “insurrection” but a random official should simply claim he “participated” in an insurrection despite Trump never entering the Capitol, telling people to peacefully protest, asking them to leave and go home, etc

He waited to tell them to leave until two or three hours after they stormed the Capitol, when it was clear they weren't going to accomplish any more.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

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.

This is exactly why the Dems call it an “insurrection” rather than the correct term. It was a “riot” by an extreme minority of the protestors.

 

[Vol8188]

He waited to tell them to leave until two or three hours after they stormed the Capitol, when it was clear they weren't going to accomplish any more.

Cool story. Still not “insurrection”. You can’t claim someone committed insurrection because “they didn’t tell people to stop doing the thing that they didn’t tell people to do in the first place, in a timely enough manner for me”

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

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?

“Deadly” 1/6/21 insurrection. You clowns are so full of **** with your talking points.

 

[825VOL]

But now you've shifted arguments from (1) the section at issue only applies to the civil war era, to (2) January 6th wasn't an insurrection. Maybe we can debate what constitutes an insurrection, but that's a much different argument than just saying this section is now effectively dead because the civil war happened over 150 years ago.

Sorry, at a volleyball game watching my students play so I won’t respond right away.
I have not shifted the argument at all. Your side is trying to use the 14th amendment that was passed to ban people who left the union for the confederacy to keep them from becoming parts of the US government again. They used the term insurrection as the reason to bar them. What I am stating is the Jan 6th was not an insurrection no matter how much you want it to be. Therefore, the 14th amendment is moot on this issue.

 

[Sudden Impact]

Cool story. Still not “insurrection”. You can’t claim someone committed insurrection because “they didn’t tell people to stop doing the thing that they didn’t tell people to do in the first place, in a timely enough manner for me”

If it wasn't an insurrection was it "a conspiracy to obstruct rights, official proceeding, and defraud " as charged in the indictment?

My thoughts are it really makes no difference what we think, both sides (some Republicans, a portion) of the aisle will use every tool to classify it as an insurrection no matter what we think. If they can get it through this process it doesn't make any difference what it is called.

The Conspiring to do so shows Intent so it makes no difference and it will be used if they have to do so to eliminate him. Means, Motive & Opportunity. Elements of proof are there. It is what it is.

There will be a ton of chaos, riots, but not as many because of the Jan 6 sentences.