re: Dems float 14th amendment to bar Trump from running "Conviction isn't needed to qualify"

quote:

---

Get a job you stupid fricking dick

---

Another cerebral contribution from pbro.

Thanks, my man!

Is it too much to capture the gist in a post as you see it?

The premise in the abstract immediately calls into question the entire paper. Within the paper itself, the self-executing section doesn't address the satisfaction of the terms of the self-execution of the clause specific to Trump, it dismissed the first SCOTUS ruling on the 14th as "simply wrong," and the way they dismiss the Victor Berger situation is particularly damaging to their credibility since their line of thinking must exclude consideration for the fact that Berger was allowed to run for and hold public office after his conviction as a traitor was overturned. It also doesn't address the election of 1876 which was contested by Hayes, including sending what you call "fake electors." Lastly, it doesn't address the language in the clause that implies the applicability to individuals is limited to former oath-takers rather than current oath-takers. Opine on that last part if you've got it, but it seems extremely likely (and logical) that use of the 14th wouldn't apply to someone who was actively an elected official of the US at the time of the alleged insurrection.

Contemporary articles require a heavy dose of skepticism for obvious reasons, and you already disclaimed the fact the authors are intensely anti-Trump.

quote:

---

Opine on that last part if you've got it, but it seems extremely likely (and logical) that use of the 14th wouldn't apply to someone who was actively an elected official of the US at the time of the alleged insurrection.

---

I think you are misreading the section on that part. The section disqualifies anyone who, as a public official, took an oath to defend the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection. It doesn't say anything about leaving office first. Held an office, took an oath, engaged in insurrection.

In fact, I read it exactly the opposite as you suggest: if the person already left office before the alleged insurrection, then section 3 arguably does not apply to them.

quote:

---

Is it too much to capture the gist in a post as you see it?

---

Yes, it kinda is. It's not my theory, and I don't want to spend much time trying to defend it. You can read it for yourself.

quote:

---

it dismissed the first SCOTUS ruling on the 14th as "simply wrong,

---

Well, their whole point in discussing Griffen's case was that Justice Chase had to go well beyond the plain text of section 3 to reach his interpretation. Which was the very point we were discussing when I cited the article. A strict constructionist cannot agree with Chase's interpretation.

I'm really not sure how the Hayes election even applies here. Nor am I concerned that Berger was later allowed to hold office...did anyone even seek to have him disqualified?

The whole self operation argument is strange, but I don't think a judicial conviction for insurrection is required. I'm just not concerned about the "self executing" part because it will all wind up in court anyway.

I will say, though, that I don't agree with the authors' opinion on the events of Jan. 6 itself. I think Trump can be found to be an insurrectionist based on the whole plan laid out in the DC indictment, but not just the demonstration on Jan. 6.

quote:

---

I'm really not sure how the Hayes election even applies here.

---

He was an insurrectionist by your definition, and not only did his overt threats not see the 14th hurled at him despite the civil war still being quite fresh, they lead to a reasoned and independent review of the claims that lead to him winning the election. It's a bit relevant.

quote:

---

Nor am I concerned that Berger was later allowed to hold office...did anyone even seek to have him disqualified?

---

He won 2 elections and both times he was disallowed from taking office. Then his conviction was overturned, he won again, and this time was allowed to serve. The conviction was the "thing" in that case. Also seems relevant.

It appears you're arguing that any SoS can use any of these unadjudicated things to remove Trump from the ballot. I agree they can try, much like any government can try to subvert the constitution for any reason. It's why we have the courts. I'm arguing that it's almost certain to fail, unless circumstances change, like if he is convicted of treason, or actually declares war on the United States, or admits he intended to overthrow the government with his army of middle aged white people and their camera phones.

quote:

---

It would be the states keeping him off the ballot so the states would be depriving him of due process.

---

He might tell you that due process is irrelevant because that was put in clause 1 of the amendment instead of clause 4 or 5.

Per Penn Law

quote:

---

Third, to the
extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, super-
sedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex
post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the
First Amendment.

---

Unlucky break for due process. They don't actually go into detail about this specific case, but after a few softball comparisons like abolition of slavery, they concluded somewhat definitively that Trump can stuff his rights if they conflict with 14.3 if it's invoked.

quote:

---

I think you are misreading the section on that part. The section disqualifies anyone who, as a public official, took an oath to defend the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection.

---

Define insurrection, specifically.