[Dilbert San Diego]

I don’t see how this lawsuit can go forward. Trump has not been convicted of anything involving rebellion or insurrection or whatever other label people put on his actions.

Since he hasn’t been convicted of anything, there’s no way he can be said to be banned from running for office under the 14th amendment. Without a conviction on such charges, legally, the 14th amendment can’t be invoked.

[Nervous Tick]

>> I don’t see how this lawsuit can go forward.

It can’t. This shyster’s claim of insurrection is not proof of insurrection, and proof of insurrection will be required.

Just another showboating progressive. Bet it’s thrown out right away. ANYONE can “file” a lawsuit.

[fuzzylogic]

They seem to think that doesn’t matter. They simply can assert he engaged in it, as, you know, the media has called it an ‘insurrection’ a million times, and that is it!

[Repealthe17thAmendment]

This amendment has not been tested in the courts, and there are several reasons why it wouldn't apply to Trump. First of all, the charge of insurrection has been made rhetorically, but there is no conviction, or even a criminal charge that he had done so. For obvious reasons, just saying that someone has been part of an insurrection, or given aid and comfort to the enemy, would make it impossible to nominate just about anyone- especially anyone in the Democrat Party, who give comfort and aid to our enemies as a matter of policy! Giving $85 Billion worth of military equipment to the Taliban would disqualify Biden and half of Washington.

Also, in a stricter legal sense, there is precedent that says that the President and Vice-President are not part of the "officer" class, since they are voted on by the people. Thus, not covered under the 14th Amendment. Note that Senators and Representatives are listed separately, so they are to be included in this clause, but President and VP are not included.

And while this lawsuit is not going to go far, I think it gives some insight to where the Democrats and the RNC are heading.

[Dave911]

Exactly, this dope acts like he’s already been found guilty and he hasn’t even come to trial yet. I wouldn’t want to have this idiot as my tax attorney.

[CA Conservative]

“Since he hasn’t been convicted of anything, there’s no way he can be said to be banned from running for office under the 14th amendment. Without a conviction on such charges, legally, the 14th amendment can’t be invoked.“

The problem with your argument is that the amendment was written to bar those who had been in Congress before the Civil War and then either fought for the South or held elective office in the Confederacy from being able to be elected again after the war. Many if not most of those people were never charged with insurrection or rebellion. Are you saying this clause of the 14th Amendment would not have applied to them?

Now I am not saying the lawyer is correct, I am just saying your argument that a conviction is required doesn’t hold water.