Posted on 02/04/2024 7:40:41 PM PST by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
Donald Trump's attempt to be reinstated on the ballot in Colorado could hinge on interpretations of the Constitution made in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, legal experts believe.
Trump was declared ineligible to appear on the Colorado ballot on December 19.
The decision marked the first time in history that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has been used to disqualify a presidential candidate, and the U.S. Supreme Court on January 5 agreed to hear Trump's appeal against the Colorado Supreme Court's decision.
Oral arguments are set to be heard on February 8.
Lawyers for both sides will reference arguments made 150 years ago by Salmon Chase, a member of Abraham Lincoln's Cabinet who Lincoln appointed to the Supreme Court in 1864.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
The impeachment trial by the Senate did not convict him of insurrection or any of the other elements of the Schiff fabrication narrative of the clear duty of President Trump to investigate criminal activity of a large segment of the federal goverment (continuing the proven hoax of Russia Russia paid for by the DNC and hitlery clinton, and approved by obama and one dumb@@@ VP joey bags and a cabal of deep state scared administrators whose game is long over).
This article is specious- the wording of the 14th Amendment is not “general” it is specific, and was specific for the former office holders in the then fedgov who seceded with their States, which the Amendment’s authors (and limited states that ratified it, btw) determined to call “insurrectionists”. Such is the stretch for Nancy Pelosi and company to broaden the application of the term to legal protest in public forums— ie. criminalizing speech and protest, and Pelosi’s very unclever use of agent provocateurs.
Contrast the “living document” approach with what Supreme Court Justice David Brewer wrote in South Carrolina v. United States.
Said he: “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted it means now. Those things which are within its grants of power, as those grants were understood when made, are still within them, and those things not within them still excluded . . . . As long as it continues to exist in its present form, it speaks not only in the same words, but with the same meaning and intent with which it spoke when it came from the hands of its framers, and was voted on and adopted by the people of the United States. Any other rule of construction would abrogate the judicial character of this court, and make it the mere reflex of the popular opinion or passion of the day.”
Which model do you like better?
Presuming any of these Fantasists can freaking READ the text of the so called Amendment (one of many that should be repealed).
If Scoytis decodes Trumps remvable from the ballot thats the end of our country.
Surely they woud not re9ve Trump for any ballor. he has never committed or aided any insurrection.
There actually was not an insurrection but only an entrapment of the gullible.
Expect the usual suspects, Roberts and Barrett, to lack a backbone.
*******************
My memory may be faulty, but I thought vI read somewhere that Roberts ruled in some earlier case that the President is not an “officer” of the United States.That should end the case right there.
When was Trump convicted of “insurrection?”
This is why the dems are using this. The only question up for discussion is whether or not what happened on January 6 constituted an ‘insurrection’ under the meaning of the 14th Amendment. The dems are basically saying that a group of unarmed people breaking, or being escorted into the Capitol, constituted an insurrection equivalent to four years of violent Civil War.
It’s absurd, but then they believe that men can become pregnant.
I agree with Brewer. So why did you advocate a “living document” approach?
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.......”
In essence the key words are, “.....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.......”
So the question is did Trump “engage in insurrection or rebellion?” Did he give aid or comfort to enemies (of the United States)?
Personally, I think Biden is more guilty to giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the USA than Trump. As to did Trump engage in insurrection or rebellion?
The M Webster dictionary says that insurrection is “....an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government...” I didn't see Trump breaking down doors or fences at the Capitol building. I don't think exercising free speech protected by the 1st Amendment is being found guilty of insurrection.
Now let's look at the M Webster dictionary definition of rebellion; “....
1: opposition to one in authority or dominance
2a: open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government
b: an instance of such defiance or resistance.....”
I never saw Trump with a firearm or weapon storming the Capitol building.
I think that the Supreme Court is smart enough to say that this line of argument is just a political party in power trying to prevent free elections.
Show me where the word conviction is stated in that section of the document? It simply says engaged. BTW, Trump said he was immune from prosecution, so how could he be convicted?
This they will look into.............
And Congress, with over a 2/3rd vote in each chamber, nullified Section 3 in 1898.
It doesn’t exist anymore. Read on:
Judges Have No Legal Authority to Bar Trump From
2024 Ballots
Hans von Spakovsky / November 02, 2023
As state court proceedings get under way in Colorado, Michigan and Minnesota in lawsuits aimed at
barring Donald Trump from appearing as a presidential candidate on the ballot in next yearʼs
presidential election, the judges in those cases should understand that the text, history, and
application of the 14th Amendment make it clear that they have no legal authority to take any such
action.
Due to Trumpʼs supposed actions on Jan. 6, 2021, the challengers are trying to argue that Section 3 of
the 14th Amendment, the disqualification clause, prevents him from being president even if he is
elected, so he should be removed from the ballot by state election officials.
Section 3 provides that:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector for President and Vice
President, or hold any o{ice, civil or military, under the United States … who, having previously
taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an o{icer of the United States … to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the
same … . But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Because Trump allegedly engaged in an insurrection, according to the challengers, he is disqualified by
Section 3.
There are three major legal problems with that claim, however.
Trump Didn’t Hold An Applicable Office
First of all, Section 3 only applies to individuals who were previously a “member of Congress,” an
“officer of the United States,” or a state official. Trump has never been any of those.
He has never held state o{ice or been a U.S. senator or representative, and the U.S. Supreme Court
held in 1888 in U.S. v. Mouat that “officers” are only those individuals who are appointed to positions within the federal government.
Individuals who are elected—such as the president and vice president—are not officers within the
meaning of Section 3.
The Supreme Court reiterated that view in 2010 in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board, in which Chief Justice John Roberts concluded “the people do not vote for ʻOfficers of
the United States.ʼ” They are appointed under Article II of the Constitution.
It must also be noted that while Section 3 applies to an “elector for President or Vice President,” it does
not specify that it applies to the president or vice president. This supports the argument that the
drafters did not mean for Section 3 to apply to the president and vice president, which, again, is not
surprising, since they are not “Officers of the United States.”
No Conviction for ‘Insurrection or Rebellion’
Second, no federal court has convicted Trump of engaging in “insurrection or rebellion” in violation of
18 U.S.C. §2383, which makes it a crime to engage in “any rebellion or insurrection against the
authority of the United States.”
More importantly, in the second impeachment resolution of Trump on Jan. 11, 2021, he was charged
by the House of Representatives in Article I with “Incitement of Insurrection.” Yet, he was acquitted by
the Senate.
Given our federal constitutional system, state and federal courts should not gainsay the findings of
Congress on this issue. The risk of inconsistent rulings from state and county election officials, as well
as from the many different courts hearing these challenges, could cause electoral chaos.
Further, Congress has never passed a federal statute providing any type of enforcement mechanism in
the courts for Section 3. While some argue that this provision is self-executing and no legislation is
required, legal scholars such as Josh Blackman and Sett Tillman point to an 1869 decision of a federal
circuit court presided over by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, which held that
“legislation by Congress is necessary to give e{ect to” Section 3.
Under that holding, in the absence of such legislation, states do not have the ability to throw accused
insurrectionists o{ a federal ballot, whether they are running for Congress or the presidency.
Section 3 No Longer Extant?
Third, there is an argument that can be made—and which was already adopted by one federal court—
that Section 3 doesnʼt even exist anymore as a constitutional matter. Keep in mind that the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 after the end of the Civil War. It was aimed
at the former members of the Confederate government and military who had previously been in
Congress or held executive posts.
All of the challengers filing lawsuits to try to remove Trump from their state ballots are ignoring the
final sentence in Section 3, which is a unique provision found in no other amendment to the
Constitution. It allows Congress to remove the disqualification clause “by a vote of two-thirds of each
House.”
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.
In short, these anti-Trump ballot challenges are lawfare at its worst, trying to use the law and the
courts as a political weapon. All of these lawsuits should be dismissed.
But if any of these state courts rule against Trump, they should immediately stay their decisions and
allow Trump to remain on the ballot.
If they donʼt, and their decisions are later overturned by an appellate court after the election when
votes have already been cast, there will be no viable remedy.
On the other hand, if their rulings are upheld, then even if Trump won the election, he could still be
barred from actually serving, although I seriously doubt that the ultimate decider on this issue, the
U.S. Supreme Court, would uphold any such ruling, given the weakness of the challengersʼ claims.
Indeed. It`s for the Supreme Court to decide whether Trump is disqualified because he “engaged in insurrection...” which in my understanding also means they get to decide the insurrection part. No conviction necessary.
Don’t be silly. Remember, for Democrats, ALL that counts is the “seriousness” of the charge. Arrest, Prosecution, and Conviction is IRRELEVANT!!!!
If this happens ,the country will burn!
So, proving an assertion is no longer necessary to act on it.
You have descended to the level of a North Korean official.
You should embrace your suck.
I'm beginning to feel that, '97 or not, I should make your removal a project. You lessen the level of discourse.
It was Pelosi, not Trump, who orchestrated the so-called “insurrection.”
Actually, that would be a good thing. Then, insurrection was established and might be proven by the statements and acts of the rebelling states and their officials, the taking up arms against the remaining Union, and the establishment of a separate country. The statements and acts were of protest and challenge to suspected election fraud, not of rebellion. Holding or swinging a flag pole, even when combined with tossing a fire extinguisher is not the taking up of arms against the country. There was no establishment or declaration of a competing government. Let us welcome the comparison to the 1860s rebellion.
Great post.
War of northern aggression and subjugation. At least get the name right. We Albertans shouldn’t have to correct Americans on their own history.
War of northern aggression and subjugation. At least get the name right. We Albertans shouldn’t have to correct Americans on their own history.
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.