Posted on 01/18/2024 10:10:04 AM PST by Responsibility2nd
There’s a strange idea floating in the political ether.
Everyone from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) seems to think there is something unseemly about invoking the 14th Amendment to keep Donald Trump off the presidential ballot, and that his electoral fate ought to be left to the voters rather than the courts. Even Maine Sen. Susan Collins, who voted to impeach the former president over his involvement in the events of Jan. 6, 2021, thinks keeping him off the ballot is undemocratic.
It’s a strange idea because none of these people think about any other constitutional provisions in quite the same way.
If former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wanted to run for president, he simply wouldn’t be allowed on the ballot. No one would argue that not letting him run because he wasn’t born in the U.S. would be “undemocratic” and that we should let the voters decide.
And if Trump were to win and wanted to run for a third term, should we roll our eyes at efforts to block him using the 22nd Amendment that limits presidents to two terms? Think hard about your answer, and don’t imagine for a minute that Trump would not consider doing exactly that.
The Constitution specifies certain eligibility requirements for the presidency. If you have taken an oath of office and you engage in insurrection, you are ineligible to be president, just as you would be if you were born as a Canadian citizen or if you were only 25 years of age. It doesn’t matter how popular you are or how “undemocratic” your supporters think it is to keep you off the ballot. You are simply ineligible.
This idea of picking and choosing which part of the Constitution we’d like to apply — “constitution à la carte” — is extremely dangerous. If we are going to ignore part of the 14th Amendment because Donald Trump is popular, why stop there? Lots of people would like to ignore the Second Amendment and bring in much stricter gun control laws. Even the First Amendment has its detractors these days.
The Constitution is a package deal. We all like some parts more than others, but we must respect all parts equally. There is nothing illegitimate in using the Constitution to challenge overly restrictive gun laws or speech restrictions, no matter how popular they might be. By the same token, there is nothing undemocratic about ensuring presidential candidates meet the constitutional requirements for office.
Anyone who respects the Constitution should fully endorse removing someone from the ballot if they don’t meet those requirements.
As for the claim that keeping Donald Trump off the ballot would be “undemocratic,” well, it is. But so are lots of things in the Constitution. The Electoral College system gives California 54 Electoral College votes while Wyoming gets three. Since California has a population about 68 times larger than Wyoming’s, that makes a vote for president in Wyoming 3.7 times more valuable than a vote for president in California. There are advantages to the Electoral College system, but democratic rigor isn’t one of them.
In another sense, however, the Electoral College is quintessentially democratic because these are the rules we have agreed to use to elect our president. These rules may not be perfect, and we can certainly argue to change them, but until we do, democracy requires that we honor them.
Whether the courts find Trump is ineligible under the 14th Amendment or not, about half of the voters will be upset. But that doesn’t mean that everyone, including the people who are upset, should not respect that decision. The American Constitution is just a bunch of words on parchment unless we take those words seriously — especially when we’d rather not.
Chris Truax is an appellate lawyer in San Diego and a member of the Guardrails of Democracy Project.
Impeachment isn’t a criminal charge.
And a Judge saying that someone is guilty is not a trial. The fact remains that Trump has never been charged, had a trial and been convicted of Insurrection, yet the left wants to impose the penalty.
Could you imagine republicans messing with the ballots? Voter disenfranchisement, Summer of Lover 2020 Redux
The fact remains that Trump has never been charged, had a trial and been convicted of Insurrection, yet the left wants to impose the penalty.
That’s why the left is using this route. It requires no trail or conviction. Only problem is the comparison of a few hours of unarmed protestors in the Capitol building with four bloody years of war.
There is no criminal conviction required for disqualification.
The Supreme Court will have to decide with congress making the law clear, but I wouldn’t count on it.
The Constitutionally Repugnant Reconstruction Acts Imposed the 14th Amendment via
Martial Law Powers In Time of Peace
https://states.americanstatenationals.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/AnnasReformatofGeoffreysTimeLineResearch.pdf
What a lot of bunk. It is easily established whether a person is 35 years or older or not, or if a president has served two full terms. Unfortunately that natural born citizen part has been allowed to go out into the fog. Trump hasn’t been indicted much less convicted of insurrection. Has anyone? If he is ever convicted, then we can talk.
Does anyone know how this was applied to former Confederate officials? I know that James Longstreet, among others, was indicted for treason. Gen. Grant objected to this, saying they were exempt from such prosecution by the terms of surrender. He convinced Andrew Johnson to get the Justice Department to drop the charges. Now, here we had an actual insurrection, and Longstreet was an important part of it, and yet he sought high federal positions, such as Secretary of the Navy and U.S. Marshal, and was actually appointed as Marshal for Georgia and Minister to the Ottoman Empire.
Translation -> Twist the meaning of the 14th, then enforce that.
TRUMP HAS NOT VIOLATED THE 14th AMENDMENT A$$HOLE!
Yes there is. Insurrection leading to disqualification occurs when one is fined or imprisoned.
§2383. Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
And as we know - Trump has not been charged with insurrection. Much less being “fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”
Seems like Attorney Truax would know this. I guess he skipped Constitutional Law that day.
Does anyone know how this was applied to former Confederate officials?
It absolutely applied to former Confederate officials. Constitutional historians will tell us the intent of the 14th was to punish and prohibit former Confederates from holding national office.
To even apply this Amendment to President Trump is a miscarriage of common sense.
https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/teachers/lesson_plans/pdfs/unit11_1.pdf
Southern Opposition and Military OccupationSoutherners thought the 14th Amendment had been passed to punish them for starting the Civil War, and they refused to ratify it. Indeed there were sections which prevented ex-Confederates from voting, holding office, or being paid back for lending money to the Confederacy.
Chapter 1 The 14th Amendment and the Jim Crow Laws
Chris Truax, Author at The Bulwark
https://www.thebulwark.com/author/christruax/
Author at the Bulsh*t of trotskyite Bill Kristol.
You could also say a criminal conviction is required for disqualification because of due process rights guaranteed for all citizens. It's pretty hard for the Government to officially declare someone an insurrectionist without due process. They may be accused of such but cannot be actually officially branded as such without a trial.
So what about the 4th amendment section 4? Is it just pick and choose day?
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”
And Congress did, in 18 USC.
I’ll check it out. Thanks!
It isn’t written that a criminal conviction is necessary.
Except that hasn’t been historically what happened.
The majority of those disqualified after the civil war were never convicted of an crime in court.
You cannot be fined or imprisoned without one.
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.