Inb4 the apologists try to argue “bbbut trump hasn’t been convicted of a being an insurrectionist!”. To those people, show me where in the article that’s a requirement:
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.
A single federal judge can say that there needs to be a conviction of being an insurrectionist or rebel, and that ends this discussion in its place. There are plenty of things that aren’t written in the Constitution that judges have made up rules for. Doing this also sets a nice bright line rule that judges love.
Federal judges have no jurisdiction over state elections, even those for U.S. President.
Actually, in this case they would. The Constitution notes three requirements to hold the office of President. The President must be at least 35 years of age, a natural born citizen, and must have lived in the United States for at least 14 years. If someone were to file a suit claiming that a candidate wasn’t a natural born citizen, or that they hadn’t lived in the USA for the required 14 years, then it would be up to a federal judge to handle that case. Not the individual states. The 14th Amendments simply adds to that list of requirements that the individual must not have engaged in insurrection, etc. after having sworn an oath to the USA.
State’s can and do make their own requirements to be on the ballot but this issue will, in the end, need to be resolved at the federal level.
If the secretary of state is acting outside of her (federal) constitutional purview, Trump can sue in federal court and challenge it. State officials aren’t necessarily considered states which bar federal jurisdiction. But if Colorado had enacted a law that prevented Trump from being on the ballot and the secretary of state was the one defending it, Trump wouldn’t be able to sue in federal court.
The Secretary of State is the ultimate arbiter of who gets on a state ballot in most, if not all, states. I don’t know how that could be successfully challenged. It’s part of one of their primary functions.
The “ultimate arbiter” who still needs to act within the extent that the constitution allows. If the secretary of state started banning black men from being on the ballot, that would be outside of their scope and could be challenged in federal district court.
What section of the Constitution would require Trump to be on the ballot? Quote it please. Because the 14th Amendment suggests he doesn’t belong on it.
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment (first paragraph) both deal with due process. A federal judge could say the state official is acting outside of the Constitution by not giving him due process.
You’re also allowed to reply without downvoting. I don’t know why you think that does anything, but this isn’t Reddit.
Not that I like Trump, but the answer to your question is in text you quoted:
…shall have engaged insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
As the Constitution is ultimately a legal document, it would stand to reason that you would need a legal determination that someone is an insurrectionist, namely being charged with and convicted of insurrection.
It was meant to preclude those who had served in the confederate army and government from holding elected federal office, so in practice, at the time at least, a prior conviction for insurrection was not required. That said, it’s not clear how it would apply to Trump.
Not necessarily. Just like the constitution doesn’t specify when a fetus becomes a human (therefore fueling the whole dumb religious arguments), this doesn’t specify the requirements for someone to be labeled an insurrectionist. Requiring a conviction ascertains that being removed from the ballot is a criminal punishment, but it’s not been specified as a criminal punishment in any existing legal documents, and that’s where the grey area comes in.
I agree that it would make sense for it to require a conviction based on that language, and if it gets appealed SCOTUS will likely enact that requirement, but legal nonsense isn’t as nice and simple as “a implies b” so until something is explicitly stated in all permutations of the issue, what is and is not legal, in explicit terminology then technicalities will make a lot of stuff possible.
It didn’t require a legal determination any other time in history. That said, Congress should vote on it and if Trump gets 2/3 votes in favor in both Houses he can run.
“shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
Until he’s convicted, there’s no actual proof he did any of that.
American law isn’t based on “well, we all know he did…” it’s what can be proven in a court of law.
Same with the Cowboys for Trump guy, the conviction came first, THEN he got bounced out of office.
This is putting the cart before the horse, and I’m afraid it’s going to get bounced out of court because of that.
holding public office doesn’t, and shouldn’t have the same bar as convicting someone… this isn’t restricting individual freedoms; this is about the leader of the most powerful country on earth
It should be a relatively high bar though. Any law you can use can be used by your opponents. MTG will be trying to use these laws to ban her opponents from office if this works.
Our courts are reluctant to get too involved in political decisions - I don’t expect these challenges to succeed. “Don’t want him in office? Vote against him.”
Any law you can use can be used by your opponents
well GOOD! anyone who rallies a mob to overthrow the democratically elected government should never be allowed to run for office again
this isn’t a “sides” issue… it’s irrelevant which “side” someone’s on
It’s about to become a “sides” issue.
It does though. Impeachment, on it’s own, doesn’t bar someone from office, the conviction in the Senate does. Not convicted? Not barred from office.
If you aren’t convicted then you’re simply accused and all accused have the presumption of innocence.
In Trump’s case, yeah, I don’t LIKE it either. But let’s focus on convicting him first so there’s absolutely zero question on barring him from office.
all accused have the presumption of innocence.
That is true in terms of penalizing someone criminally, but this wouldn’t be a criminal penalization. This would be a qualification issue.
That’s like saying felons being blocked from voting or owning guns isn’t a penalty, it’s a qualification issue.
If you’re making the argument that it’s a consequence of criminal action, it very much is a penalty. But people don’t face legal consequences without convictions.
As I mentioned elsewhere, the amendment was written the way it was to bar ALL members of the Confederacy from elected office after the Civil War ended. They engaged in insurrection so they were disqualified. They weren’t all brought to trial afterwards and convicted of anything.
Forswearing the states and joining the Confederacy was a provable action though.
You can’t prove Trump engaged in insurrection without a conviction, and, again, “Well, just LOOK at him!” is not a valid legal argument.
He aided and comforted convicted insurrectionists.
In Trump’s case, yeah, I don’t LIKE it either. But let’s focus on convicting him first so there’s absolutely zero question on barring him from office.
The right will question it regardless. So how about we make not handing all of the nukes to that traitorous piece of shit our top priority.
Historically speaking, there is precedent for preventing someone from running for office under the 14th amendment without ever having tried them formally for insurrection or rebellion. Former Confederates were never allowed to hold public office ever again after the Civil War was over. None of them were tried for acts of insurrection. Presumably because there was an abundance of evidence of their involvement in the Confederacy (army payroll ledgers, draft notices, eyewitnesses, etc.).
The constitution is quite clear on this. They would have specified that it required some kind of congressional vote or judicial ruling if that’s what they intended, but they didn’t.
Being a Confederate was demonstrable.
How do you prove Trump engaged in insurrection? He never formally disavowed the Government, he didn’t establish a foreign standing army. Heck, he took the most egregious actions when he was, in fact, President.
This is why there needs to be a conviction first. There is no MAGA equivalent of the Articles of the Confederacy.
There sure is plenty of evidence that Jan 6th was orchestrated by Trump and his allies. I don’t know how you can sit there and play did-he-didn’t-he in regards to Trump’s involvement when there’s videos of him egging on his followers during the rally and watching the chaos at the capitol unfold on live television, all while not lifting a finger to prevent it from happening.
We can be reasonably sure he had involvement, either directly or through one of his cabinet. He should be banned from having his name on ballots across the country. Won’t stop morons from writing his name in anyway, I’d wager.
That’s what I’m saying though, who decides what is evidence and what isn’t? What was insurrection and what wasn’t?
There are plenty of (wrong) people who claim the evidence is that Biden “stole” the election. We know that’s not true, but to claim Trump is an insurrectionist, you have to prove that he believed it wasn’t true, that he was not acting, as he believied to be, the rightly elected President.
This is why we have a court system. It’s not about what is believed to be true, it’s about what can be proven to be true, in court, before a judge.
How do you prove Trump engaged in insurrection?
You seem to purposely leave out the “aid and comfort” clause exists in here.
Some of the underlyings were already convicted of insurrection related acts, and it can be easily proven that he provided aid and comfort to them.
And, again, phrases like “aid and comfort” have precise legal definitions. It has to be proven that Trump did this. You can’t just go “Well, look at the Tweets!”
don’t forget that NOT doing something can also be aid and comfort, when you for example actively DO NOT send federal troops to put down an obviously active attack on the government (which included violence against federal police) or by NOT immediately calling for those actions to cease.
These words, as they are to be understood in the constitution, have not received a full judicial construction. They import, however, help, support, assistance, countenance, encouragement.
https://www.law-dictionary.org/definitions-a/aid-and-comfort
Easily arguable that he provided “aid and comfort”. Also, you’re full of it as the term has not received a full judicial construction and is not precisely defined, likely on purpose.
The amendment was initially written to prevent people who fought in the Confederate army during the Civil War from running for elected offices after the war was over.
It was written so as to exclude every last member of the Confederacy outright, not ones that happened to be convicted in court cases.
In particular, they realized a few years later exactly how broad it was, and passed a law to clarify that ordinary soldiers wouldn’t count in this, with the 2/3 majority called for in the amendment, as they were intending this to be used on politicians and officers who engaged in insurrection. So it’s quite clear that the people who wrote the amendment intended it to apply without being proven in a court of law first.
Forswearing the states and joining the Confederacy was a provable action though.
You can’t prove Trump engaged in insurrection without a conviction, and, again, “Well, just LOOK at him!” is not a valid legal argument.
We also had congressional investigations and hearings about January 6th, so there is a lot of legwork there that shows his behavior–with sworn testimony. It’s not like there’s not plenty of public evidence, including tweets and voice and video recordings of Trump himself.
But, again, there are millions of folks out there who say his actions were justified. You and I both know they weren’t, but that’s not an objective truth. A court ruling is. You are guilty or not guilty. You are liable or not liable.
If we’re going to tell someone “Sorry, you don’t qualify anymore…” there needs to be an impartial judicial ruling that’s the basis for it, again, like the Cowboys for Trump guy. Convicted for 1/6, then court disqualification.
I don’t believe he would have been disqualified if he hadn’t been previously convicted.
There’s quite a bit about American law (at least in practice if not theory) that’s essentially “we all know he did it.” Civil asset forfeiture, releasing mugshots to publicly shame people that haven’t been convicted, etc. It’s wrong but taking the high road doesn’t work against fascism and doesn’t stop those things from happening to the poor.
The Constitution has places where the word “conviction” is used, e.g. impeachment and treason. If the founders wanted to make the requirement a conviction of insurrection or rebellion, they could have done so, but they chose not to. To me, this seems like a political question and should be kicked to the legislatures to deal with.
And taking a comment from your other post,
But let’s focus on convicting him first so there’s absolutely zero question on barring him from office.
So, if this is a political question, a conviction of any crime, even ones labeled as insurrection or rebellion, would still not bar him from office.
Convicting him for insurrection or rebellion would bar him from office under the 14th Amendment, the problem here being none of his charges are for insurrection or rebellion. :(
https://www.npr.org/2023/08/01/1191493880/trump-january-6-charges-indictment-counts
One count of conspiracy to defraud the United States:
Applies to Trump’s repeated and widespread efforts to spread false claims about the November 2020 election while knowing they were not true and for allegedly attempting to illegally discount legitimate votes all with the goal of overturning the 2020 election, prosecutors claim in the indictment.
One count of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding:
Was brought due to the alleged organized planning by Trump and his allies to disrupt the electoral vote’s certification in January 2021.
One count of obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding:
Is tied to Trump and his co-conspirators’ alleged efforts after the November 2020 election until Jan. 7, 2021, to block the official certification proceeding in Congress.
One count of conspiracy against rights:
Refers to Trump and his co-conspirators alleged attempts to “oppress, threaten and intimidate” people in their right to vote in an election.
Convicting him for insurrection or rebellion would bar him from office under the 14th Amendment, the problem here being none of his charges are for insurrection or rebellion. :(
Says who? There is no enforcement mechanism in the Constitution. Unless a federal court rules otherwise, history shows this is most likely a political question. Thus, Congress is the sole authority on deciding who has taken part in insurrection or rebellion and can be disqualified based on the Fourteenth. Trump could be disqualified if Congress deems it to be the case he was an insurrectionist, a rebel, or aiding or gave comfort to an enemy.
And the current composition of Congress is not only going to refuse to say Trump is an insurrectionist, multiple members were complicit in the same action. They aren’t facing removal from office either.
Until he’s convicted, there’s no actual proof he did any of that.
No, it’s just that he isn’t legally guilty of the crime. Besides, this is a states right issue. They are welcome to select their electoral votes as they deam good and just.
It’s Colorado, Trump isn’t going to win or even be close to winning the State.
Doesn’t mean he gets to ignore the constitution in this state.
This isn’t about the general election, this is about keeping him off the primary ballot.
A court case (like this) to determine his eligibility under the amendment can be used to examine any evidence and determine if he engaged in insurrection.
We can HOPE that will be the result, or it could be thrown out for a lack of standing because Trump hasn’t been convicted of anything.
I would LIKE it to be the case, but I’m afraid it won’t be. :)
I hate that you’re being down voted because you’re absolute right. Though I would dispute this:
Until he’s convicted, there’s no actual proof he did any of that.
The conviction, I think, would help but I don’t think it’s necessary. They will argue that what happened on Jan 6 qualifies. I do think it will be a difficult case to argue without any other convictions.
It will be interested to see what is argued though.
It’s a problem I ran into on reddit a lot, people get so hung up on “the way it SHOULD work” vs. the “the way it DOES or WILL work.” LOL.
I remember a thread where a guy got sent to prison for life under a three strikes rule and reddit was up in arms because the 3rd strike was for some felony weed possession.
I got downvoted for telling them “Hey, if you live in a 3 strikes state, and you already have 2 felony convictions, you have 2 choices: a) STOP COMMITTING FELONIES or b) GTFO out of Dodge and get to a state WITHOUT a three strikes rule.”
Kept having to explain that the law doesn’t care if you think making weed illegal is a moral issue. In that state it’s illegal. Don’t LIKE it? Change it or move to another state.
deleted by creator
Has he called her a nasty woman yet, or “not really my type”? That’s how we’ll know this is getting to him.
I wish a lot more prominent members of society - in politics as well as journalists - would call Republicans, especially donnie Bin Laden a liar. So very tired of the euphemisms in the face of egregious behaviors.
Removed by mod
This is the best summary I could come up with:
“Trump is a liar with no respect for the Constitution,” Griswold said in an interview on MSNBC on Saturday.
Griswold and Trump were both named in a recent lawsuit filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which argues that the former president is disqualified from the 2024 ballot under the 14th Amendment’s Section 3 — also dubbed the insurrection clause.
The Washington, D.C.-based watchdog group asked the court to find Trump’s alleged actions related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol disqualifying and to bar Griswold from allowing him on the 2024 Republican primary ballot or any futures ballots in the state.
Griswold added on Saturday that she plans to “see this litigation through,” noting that she thinks “it’s good for a court to weigh in” on the issue.
“And Donald Trump incited an insurrection, and there are big constitutional questions around that provision as to whether he is disqualified from the Colorado ballot,” Griswold continued.
“So, we’ll see this litigation through, and ultimately I think it’s important for a court to weigh in to provide guidance.”
The original article contains 310 words, the summary contains 182 words. Saved 41%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
let me guess… right wing media is going to point their crosshairs on this lady in the coming weeks.
Not her first rodeo.
Let’s say this goes through and they drop him from the ballot. What actually happens then? Does it just mean that he can’t get their electoral college votes?
It becomes a template for other states.
There are probably groups in OH, PA, WI who will file the same motion if this one in CO succeeds.
Remove trump from the ballot in enough swing states and he is no path to victory.
yeah but he would never win colorado anyway so it’s more about the principle of the matter
More like the legality of the matter. Succeed in blocking Trump in CO, it encourages others to do the same.
deleted by creator
She would be begging for money, she’s divorced, broke, and unpopular.
She is begging for money. She’s down in the polls and has run out of money. She’s almost certainly going to lose her reelection next November.
deleted by creator
They put it in quotes cause they’re quoting her. No need to get so upset.
Quoting “quotes”? Sounds like some sort of slimey “journalism” thing.
