When was Trump convicted of “insurrection?”
I must have missed it.
The issues with Trump must be considered in the context of the current understanding of the purpose of the 14th.
The DM can’t tell a girl from a boy, it renders this story clickbait.
Only the Left calls J6 a insurrection.
It’s just a coincidence, right?
They don’t even have to look at the history, they can just look at the text. This part of the 14th Amendment is not self-executing.
In a sane world being “accused” of being an insurrectionist versus actually being convicted of it would be considered insane.
Due process? DJT was never convicted of insurrection or rebellion against the same. This is high school civics.
SCOTUS could rule that it is a political decision and leave it to Congress, or it could make a legal decision that Trump has never been convicted of treason, conspiracy, or insurrection and therefore the lower court needs to hold a hearing on the issue. Expect the usual suspects, Roberts and Barrett, to lack a backbone.
The “insurrection” was an insurance policy. It was hatched by Pelosi and the DOJ in the weeks just after the 2020 election to make Trump a legally flawed candidate. They knew the election was rigged because they rigged it. They knew in 2024 Teump voters would prove the steal in 2020, so they had to make him ineligible to run again.
Be careful opening up such questions. I personally believe if we can join the union voluntarily then we can leave it voluntarily in spite of decisions of 150+ years ago. It is a basic principle in our constitution. Freedom of association. It really is that simple. We are not slaves to the FedGov. We do not lose that basic principle of association.
The closest was his second impeachment, where he was also acquitted on all counts by the Senate of inciting an insurrection.
So, speculation by the unemployed.
Not really.
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.
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.
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.
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.
War of northern aggression and subjugation. At least get the name right. We Albertans shouldn’t have to correct Americans on their own history.