Posted on 04/22/2022 12:04:08 PM PDT by cotton1706
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.
Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment[1]
Until January 6, 2021, Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment was one of the vestigial portions of the Constitution.[2] Designed to exclude many former Confederate officials and soldiers from federal or state office, Section Three was quickly neutered by Congress.[3] In 1872, more than the required two-thirds of the Senate and the House of Representatives passed an Amnesty Act removing disabilities from all of the former state officers covered by Section Three.[4] Then in 1898, comparable supermajorities in Congress removed the few remaining disabilities as a gesture of national unity during the Spanish-American War.[5] After that Section Three was almost completely forgotten, except for posthumous disability removals given to Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis in the 1970s.[6]
(Excerpt) Read more at constitutionalcommentary.lib.umn.edu ...
Can a congressional law negate an amendment?
Can a congressional law negate an amendment?
“But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
In this instance, yes, since the Constitution made provision for it.
J6 was a defense against domestic enemies.
OK, got it, thanks!
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.
------------------------------------------------------------
Even if it hadn't been negated, it was not an insurrection, not was it a rebellion. A small percentage of the crowd got angered and were cajoled into creating acts of violence and destruction to personal property. The only ones killed were protestors.
“Even if it hadn’t been negated, it was not an insurrection, not was it a rebellion. A small percentage of the crowd got angered and were cajoled into creating acts of violence and destruction to personal property. The only ones killed were protestors.”
You’re correct of course. But the point is not to allow members of congress to be removed from the ballot due to a defunct provision.
So, the group going after MTG’s ability to run in the next election is completely full of hooey?
From an individual or individuals, not from the amendment.
It is not defunct, Congress would have to vote to remove the disability from her.
That said, their effort will fail IMHO.
Language of 14th§3 is general rather than specific to the 1860s era insurrection. I’d think that it could be reused against some hypothetical post-1860s era one. That offered the clarifying virtue that post-war no one was arguing whether it qualified as one. I can’t see how in any rational world 1/6 qualifies as one, although the events protested then probably should. But to employ 14th§3 would seem to require passage of some applicable enabling legislation — article mentions SCOTUS ruling it was not self-enforcing. Doubt the amnesty acts left any teeth from the original reconstruction era ones. They’ve removed the disabilities they specified, but not potential ones still implied by 14th§3 (which removal would require another amendment, like the 21st.). But 14th§5 indisputably lives and with that authority Congress could revive §3.
I believe the that the negation was for the specified extant class of individuals, but not any future ‘insurrectionists’; that would take a separate negation.
The provisions of the Amendment still stand. This, or a future, Congress would need to vote to negate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.