Posted on 09/15/2023 2:37:25 PM PDT by LS
Below is the 14th Amendment brief that lawyer Robert Barnes wrote, which I think you'll all find very informative. It was sent only to subscribers, but I don't think he'd mind me reposting just this portion of his much longer newsletter. If he does, he knows my email.
Let’s dispatch with the 14th Amendment argument more and more frivolous litigants file suit in to try to bar Trump from the ballot.
Let’s start with the text itself. Of note, section 5 clarifies who can enforce this provision: “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” Here’s what Section 3 says: 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.
First, the text itself doesn’t even apply to the President. It only applies to Senators, Representatives, Electors, or civil or military officers of the United States or a state of the government. Consequently, it has no application, by its own words, to the President.
Second, the text itself doesn’t even apply to the ballot. It is a bar on holding office, not being on a ballot for office. As such, it cannot be a bar to being on the ballot when it makes no reference to the ballot.
Third, the text itself gives no “power to enforce” to the executive branch, judicial branch, or any state agency, court, or legislature. It only gives that power expressly, explicitly, and exclusively to Congress. No “appropriate legislation” from Congress ever excluded or excludes a Presidential candidate from a state ballot under this Clause.
Fourth, the clause only applies to those who meet two substantive conditioning constrictive qualifications: criminally treasonous behavior as ”shall” have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the United States or “aid or comfort to the enemies of the United States” and did so after taking an oath to support the Constitution.” Trump has never been found, or even accused, of having “engaged in insurrection” nor “aid or comfort to the enemies” of the United States. No finding of insurrection ever occurred by the United States during any tenure of Trump’s office nor was any act of war declared as necessary to aid an enemy. Thereby, this substantive conditioning clause could not apply.
Fifth, and finally, historical context and precedent both support Trump. This clause intended for the ex-Confederate, former officials of the government never intended to apply beyond it, as it makes no reference to the other qualifications clauses of the Constitution. Equally, historical precedent supports Trump, as convicted seditionist Eugene V. Debs was not excluded from any Presidential ballot in 1920 when he ran for the Presidency from federal prison.
Put simply, the Fourteenth Amendment disbarment argument is historically, legally, and Constitutionally frivolous.
Barnes had better watch out. He may be indicted for writing this essay on the inapplicability of the 14th Amendment.
“section 5 clarifies who can enforce this provision...”
Section 5 doesn’t prevent a court from enforcing Section 1 and there is no reason why it would prevent a court from trying to enforce Section 3.
A court in New Mexico has barred (and tossed out) a J6 defendant from public office.
I have for years called for Biden to be tossed from office by a court for violating via his Brady Bill vote the Amendment VI right of Americans to be secure in the possession of their firearms.
Amendment IV right
Yep!
Moreover, several former Confederates held office under the United States!!
the 14th Amendment is not applicable at all to this situation now
except that PDJT is patently being denied proper equal protection and due process of the law
So the president is not considered an officer of the United States?
John Bachelor had an interview on his radio program with Richard Epstein of the Hoover Institution on this topic the other night.
For anyone so inclined, no. one with a link to no. 2 (both short):
The democRATS could care less about what applies, does not apply, and/or has nothing to do with anything. The democRATS already ignore any and all rules, regulations and laws if they decide to. Without a conscience and a soul, anything is possible. They will dream up laws, and ‘create’ evidence. They attempted the tried-and-true sexual accusations against President Trump. He laughed, and immediately ATTACKED. None of the ‘stories’ they created were true.
What really irks and drives the them crazy, the Left, the Deep State, the Ruling Class, is that President Trump never stops fighting, keeps telling the truth, has enough money* to fight hard, and, as Rush often reminds us, has FUN doing it.
*money. President Trump has money the old fashioned way, he earned it. So, so many democRATS enter office without much money, and.... Shazam, they are rolling in doe (other people’s money).
You confuse DemoKKKrats with courts. Yes, courts do still care. Not all, but many otherwise you and I wouldn’t even be talking.
Not under the stipulations of the 14th Amendment which CLEARLY excludes him.
What Barnes didn’t mention was that to include the “President” as an office would have lent legitimacy to Jeff Davis. To the drafter of the 14th, the only “President” was Lincoln and, by extension, unfortunately, Johnson. But no, not under this definition. Law clearly looks at precision in wording . . . when it works right.
You cite the only example in history, so far, where this worked, and I would suggest that that person did not appeal. If he had, he would have won because higher courts ruled in favor of both MTG and Madison Cawthorne in exactly the same cases.
He knows. He has spoken up for Alex Jones many times.
it does apply to biden
It doesn’t say how it is determined that someone engaged in insurrection or rebellion. Of course when the amendment was adopted everyone knew it meant Confederates. But it doesn’t say you have to be convicted in a court of law. So perhaps being accused on TV by a Congressman of the opposing party is sufficient grounds to bar someone. Some states could try that.
Thanks for all of your answers and questions re:
Robert Barnes’s Brief on the Inapplicability of the 14th Amendment to Donald Trump
Barnes Brief (sent to subscribers) ^ | 9/15/2023 | Robert Barnes
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4182692/posts
Barnes won’t mind, he discusses it frequently on Viva Frei’s channel. As for the NM low level Republican that resigned, he was asked to resign and did so. He didn’t bother to fight, probably because it was a very low level position and not worth the headache. All he did was attend J6, no arrest, no violence.
It’s obvious they can’t remove Trump, otherwise they would have done so already. Dems need Trump to run because only TDS voters give them a chance to win. Without Trump on the ballot, millions will stay home like they did pre-Trump. There are fewer TDS voters than 2020 thanks to Biden’s performance and the death of corporate media. YouTube influencers are reaching more folks than corporate media ever did. And their message isn’t towing the ‘dem party line’.
One example: CartierFamily channel. 800k subscribers. 4 young black men ‘reacting’ to videos. They used to be democrats until recently. They watch Prager U, History of slavery, What are we doing to white people, Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder on the Breakfast Club, etc. There are many channels like this and they are inadvertently educating others while learning themselves.
I’m assuming capitalism was the instigator to choose these subjects. These boys knew nothing about politics starting out. They started the channel to review music videos. To gain more viewers they expanded the subjects to ‘react’ to. They are not alone.
Ignore my last post, it was meant for LS. Sorry about that.
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.