That is an excellent, reasoned and backed by historical fact, SCOTUS rulings and Congressional Acts by Hans von Spakovsky.
later
So far the democrat party is showing it’s the greatest risk to the Constitution by how they go after trump.
2020 was a very bad year
Blue states enact govt travel bans over the unavailability of coed bathrooms in red states
Red states do nothing over historical political persecution.
I won’t be visiting these places anymore.
They let a guy with no valid birth certificate run but they want to bar someone who said things they don’t like on Twitter.
Since when are leftist ideologues constrained by legal authority?
I have one quibble with the author:
Section 3 No Longer Extant?What the author fails to consider is that the Amendment still exists. It has not been amended nor repealed.Third, there is an argument that can be made—and which was already adopted by one federal court—that Section 3 doesn’t even exist anymore as a constitutional matter...
Congress voted to remove the disqualification twice. The Amnesty Act of 1872 stated that the “political disabilities” imposed by Section 3 “are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever” except for members of the 36th and 37th Congresses and certain other military and foreign officials.
Note that there is no time limit in this language.
Congress even got rid of these remaining exceptions in the Amnesty Act of 1898, which stated that “the disability imposed by section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States heretofore incurred is hereby removed.”
There was no language preserving any of the disqualifications for future cases.
No Congress can bind a future Congress.
Just because past Congresses passed laws removing the disqualifications from the 14th amendment doesn't mean that future Congresses can't restore those disqualifications in the face of new existential threats to the nation.
Regarding January 6, Congress cannot pass ex post facto laws. If they did pass a law restoring the 14th Amendment Section 3 disqualifications, it cannot apply to January 6th as that is long in the past.
-PJ
The 14th Amendment was not, in fact, designed to keep Trump off the ballot. It was designed to keep Confederate States of America officials off the ballot.
The Confederacy was an insurrection, and was declared so by Congress.
January 6th was demagogued by some to be an “insurrection “, but because some schmucks say it was doesn’t make it so. All based on one political party’s desire to triumph over the other?
Where was the vote? Were was the arguments and speeches made both pro and con? Some TV news desk, LOL?! Nanzi Pelosi’s podium? Lizard Cheney’s microphone? Adam Kinzerger’s tear glands? GMAFB!
Verdict: not a legal toe, let alone a leg, to stand on.
It’s ELECTION INTERFERENCE, isn’t it? I mean, in 2019, even investigating Biden was!
If anyone wants to watch from the Colorado Court livestream, here is the link. https://live.coloradojudicial.gov/?streamId=35b1db1b-2ccc-47e8-9f59-33cd656391f9
Important: Choose DENVER COURTROOM 209 from the All Live Streams drop down list.
C-SPAN’s coverage has horrible audio. I looked for a live discussion thread here over the last few days, but I don’t see one. People are not allowed to rebroadcast the hearing without court permission. Congressman Buck’s testimony was good today! Many other witnesses have provided balance and contrast to the story about what happened on January 6.
As a barred attorney I am profoundly embarrassed to see how many lawyers have become Lavrentiy Beria clones.
When Trump wins, I’ll never forget the Republicans who jumped right in with the Democrats to beat Trump. That party will be dead in the dirt when the Trump era comes to a close.
There have never been any people in the history of the world who are more hypocritical than modern Democrats.
They support the democratically-elected terrorist organization Hamas, call themselves “Democratic”, and yet are unwilling to accept the will of the people.
The same will scream bloody murder over the most reasonable, common-sense voter security measure of requiring IDs under the guise that somehow people are disenfranchised by this requirement. They know that allowing voting without ID invites fraud, and they know they benefit and are complicit in this election fraud.
I must have missed the trial that found him guilty of treason, along with the appeals. How can you deny someone access to the ballot on a mere allegation? The cart is definitely ahead of the horse here.
Section 3 explicitly states “office UNDER the United States”. The Presidency has never been considered an office UNDER the United States.
Engaging in this frivolous lawsuit indicates top Democrats have some concerns about Colorado, Minnesota, and Michigan being swing states in the 2024 election.
Pushback and disbarment would be letting them off way too easy.