Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Constitutional Issues The 14th Amendment and Donald Trump

My apologies. I didn't realize that bill was just sitting there. I thought I saw on TV news that it was passed. Maybe it was the way they spun it or I misinterpreted. Thanks for the correction.

The Republicans on the SCOTUS claim to be originalists, but that’s not what they did in this ballot case. In their per curium opinion (decision of a judge, or of a court in unanimous agreement) they selectively quote is one extremely small amount of the history of the 14th Amendment and ignores the rest. It doesn’t address the mountains of information provided in the two amicus briefs filed by historians. Their decision is solely based on outcomes. What Republican-SCOTUS does is invent a bunch of reasons why their preferred outcome is right.

Why is the Republican SCOTUS is in the bag for Trump? They have life tenure, a decent income, and constant security. They have enormous power, to the point that no law or rule is effective without their consent. They have a long to-do list of laws and rules destined for termination. Why waste any of their muscle on Trump?

The easy answer is that they’re corrupt. There’s plenty of evidence of that. Clarence Thomas? His insurrectionist-adjacent wife? And a free RV? Alito, with his giant salmon? Neil Gorsuch’s house? Brett Kavanaugh’s disappearing debts? John Roberts’ wife with her $10 million from BigLaw for legal recruiting? Their total indifference to ethics and the appearance of impropriety?

The per curium decision by the Court all but insures that Trump is not be subject to disqualification under the Insurrection Clause. The timetable for the absurd immunity claim, shows us that mischief that awaits us from their upcoming immunity decision is additional insurance that Trump will stay in the race for November 3024.

Rick, as plain as day is section 5 of the 14th amendment. “The congress shall have power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article.” By provision they mean the different sections. Congress did pass the appropriate legislation during the civil war declaring the south in a state of insurrection and then passed numerous laws to enforce all sections of the 14th on the south.

Congress never did this for 1-6. By not doing so, it means officially, legally, 1-6 wasn’t an insurrection. You can’t have an insurrectionist if there was no insurrection. Also, part of the ruling was that the states can’t enforce section 3 without the congress giving them the authority to enforce it by appropriate legislation to do so. This was done after the civil war and ratification of the 14th by the numerous laws passed by congress. But not for 1-6. I can’t see how the SCOTUS could have ruled any other way.

Also keep in mind. No one thought of applying the 14th to Trump until 3 or 4 months after 1-6 took place. After the second impeachment failed. The legal scholars that proposed applying this civil war amendment to Trump knew it was a long shot. But that didn’t stop it from gaining momentum among the public at large. But everyone ignored section 5 which spelled out what needed to be done to enforce the 14th as applying it to Trump.

With respect, my friend, that's legally and historically bullshit.

In no other provision of the Constitution, or law, is a grant of authority a restriction on applicability. It's nonsense. Section 3, like every other provision of the 14th Amendment, is "self executing". Congress may pass legislation implementing it, but isn't required to.

The proof is the way it was interpreted at the time. Congress passed a series of acts to grant exemptions before they passed any implementation laws. Why would they need to do that except for the fact that everyone thought it was a reality - a done deal.

The SCOTUS cabal got this wrong, too - to deliberately give Trump, and the other insurrectionist, cover. Expect a terrible decision in Fischer too. The fix is in. The fascists are making their move.

But ... but ... that can't happen in America

Been happening ... Democracy is in danger

Both Houses of Congress in January voted that Trump is an insurrectionist. Congress did the job.

H.Res.24 — 117th Congress (2021-2022) passed in the House.
Seven R Senators voted with ALL Dem Senators to agree that Trump is an insurrectionist. The 14th requires a majority - 66 Senators - to remove the label insurrectionist. That did not happen. Therefore, according to the '21-'22 Congressional calendar votes, Trump IS an insurrectionist.

Yes, while the vote fell 10 short to remove Trump from office, 56 Senators found Trump to be an insurrectionist and that is exactly what the 14th states needed to be done.

The SCOTUS is playing fast and loose with their Rwing interpretation of the Constitution.

At the risk of upsetting -

The congress didn't convict and he hasn't been convicted in court. That being the case he is not an insurrectionist - sorry...........

I was going to rant and rave. Why bother? Stuff seems to be getting just worse and worse and there is no solving anything. I can easily list a huge list of things that are wrong but everybody pretty much knows about that. There is really only one huge problem from our side. Something close to half the population seems to be dedicated to lies, simple lies!!

All we have to do is to explain these lies and, all being grownups, those folks will all change their minds.

Gosh, that seems pretty easy - any thoughts why not?

However, if we fail, there will be ww3. The current Russian will have the support of the United States of America and I don't believe them that believe the lies give a damn!

Wow! Kinda makes one wonder.............

Correct. Trump was not convicted, he was labeled by both Chambers of Congress, by vote, as an insurrectionist. Labeling a person an insurrectionist is all that is required for disqualification. The 14th DOES NOT REQUIRE A CONVICTION - ONLY THE BEHAVIOR is required. REPEAT: The 14th DOES NOT REQUIRE A CONVICTION - ONLY THE BEHAVIOR is required.

As the SCOTUS ruled, only Congress can label someone an insurrectionist, thereby disqualifying him from holding office. The '21'-'22 Congress has done this.

1860's Congress clearly intended Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to prevent oath-breaking insurrectionists and those who sympathized with them from serving in federal or state government.

It is now a requirement of Speaker Mike Johnson to remove Trump for being disqualified as an insurrectionist per the 14th Amendment. If Johnson does not do this, Johnson himself must be removed. Then the next Speaker must remove Trump. If he/she does not. THAT Speaker needs to be removed - so forth and so

UPDATE: There is a part of the ruling that I missed until this afternoon. Not only did the SCOTUS state what I wrote above, this is the part that I missed: "...the majority’s holding that only Congress can enforce the Insurrection Clause, and only with the approval of SCOTUS."

...and with only approval of SCOTUS?!? WTF?? That's not in the language of the 14th!

The women on SCOTUS agree that this is unnecessary for the decision. It’s purely a creation of the SCOTUS men. It prescribes no standards, and it arrogates power to SCOTUS at the expense of Congress.

Contrary to what the media reported saying the decision was 9-0, there were actually four dissenters - all of the women. The media Bill Barr'd us.

I completely agree. The determination is not consistent with the language, purpose, or interpretation of the Constitution that has prevailed over 100 years. As you note, "it arrogates power to SCOTUS at the expense of Congress". This is part and parcel of the judicial takeover of the government - it is called, a "Dikastocracy"? It's one label for "rule by judges". Sometimes referred to (incorrectly, but more understandably) as "juristocracy" (mashing Latin and Greek roots together), or kritocracy/kritarchy/critocracy. Whatever label, we're living in it. And it is a recipe for Dikastophy!

You are correct. Indeed, Mark Joseph Stern discovered they were actually written that way. The Supreme Court’s “Unanimous” Trump Ballot Ruling Is Actually a 5–4 Disaster (Slate) Actually, it was both the Supreme Court and the media.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

The Supreme Court Is Not Up to the Challenge (Quinta Jurecic, Atlantic) - gift Article)
The decision in Trump v. Anderson is another sign that the nation’s highest court will not help the country out of its political crisis.

"The justices chose to avail themselves of an escape hatch, reasoning that the Fourteenth Amendment allows states to disqualify candidates for state office but not for federal office. This neatly allows them to dispose of the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling by focusing on a seemingly dull, technical issue concerning the mechanics of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The problem with this reasoning is that it is wrong. Despite the justices’ paeans to history, this line of argument is deeply disconnected from what the historical record shows about the Reconstruction-era understanding and implementation of Section 3. The Court claims that the amendment wasn’t meant to allow states power over federal elections, but, for example, the election-law expert Edward B. Foley 'https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/02/supreme-court-colorado-oral-argument-trump-disqualify/677408/' how Ohio’s state legislature chose in 1868 against electing a Senate candidate who was arguably disqualified for the seat under the Fourteenth Amendment. In this sense, there’s a palpable desperation to the Court’s ruling: The justices were looking for some way, any way, to get themselves out of this bind, even if their reasoning is profoundly unconvincing.
...
But the liberals’ concurrence shatters Barrett’s insistence that, “for present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity.” The tone of their opinion is strikingly angry, citing both Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and Bush v. Gore—two Supreme Court rulings that damaged the Court’s legitimacy by giving the justices the appearance of engaging in unprincipled politicking. And they warn that “the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office.”
...
The Court wants to be seen as above politics, but it isn’t. Politics has arrived at its door. The Anderson decision achieves, in its own way, a remarkable feat: It manages to expand the Court's own power while also expressing a deep uncertainty about what, in a moment of crisis, that power is actually for.
"The justices chose to avail themselves of an escape hatch, reasoning that the Fourteenth Amendment allows states to disqualify candidates for state office but not for federal office. This neatly allows them to dispose of the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling by focusing on a seemingly dull, technical issue concerning the mechanics of the Fourteenth Amendment.[size:11pt][/size]