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

I have found over the years, in general, conservatives are concrete thinkers, so abstractions completely elude them. This is an example. And to further elucidate, it would make no sense for Congress to write and then have ratified an amendment which excluded the office of the presidency (and vice president) from the same restrictions as for other offices.

It is common for conservatives to use the phrase, "but I didn't say that word". Yes, but you used every word in the dictionary which would mean the same thing, therefore I may infer you meant THAT word as well. This is mostly seen in racial or bigoted comments.

Your comment on the difference between running for and holding office I think is worth consideration. So how would the relevant parties prevent someone who engaged in insurrection or rebellion from taking office after winning an election? Within the context of the aftermath of the War Between the States, I can see the writers having an understanding that people who had participated in the war against the Constitution and the United States would not have the gall to run for office, and if they had they would immediately be thrown off the ballot. So it would appear to me that Secretaries of State would preemptively delete anyone engaged in an insurrection (or rebellion) against the Constitution, once a court had a finding that person was indeed a participant in insurrection. On the flip side, how would anyone prevent an insurrectionist, who had previously taken an oath to support the Constitution, after winning an election, from taking the oath of office? Would they tackle them on the dais? Trip them on the way to the dais? Call out the National Guard? So I think a preemptive filing is the path forward.

I want to hear what others are thinking on this issue!!!

A pre-emptive filing without due processes is anti-constitutional and anti-democracy - the two very things you're trying to protect.

so you think the voters who brought suit to have Trump not on ballot is "anti-constitutional and anti-democracy"?

Not sure I understand what you think is "anti-constitutional and anti-democracy".

Yes, because there was no trial. Simply keeping a person off of the ballot is a dangerous precedent. It can happen to our side some day. We want the person being kept off of the ballot to have due processes and found guilty. THEN, they can kept off of the ballot.

Although I don’t understand how a judge could rule or find Trump as being an insurrectionist, but then allow him to run for the presidency somehow seems wrong. Although running, being on the ballot for the primaries and not allowed to hold office can be two different things. But I do agree with Rick. Trump needs to be charged as being an insurrectionist or aiding and abetting, go through with the trial, due process. This should be done at the federal level as if it’s done at the state level, you’ll have some states which don’t have Trump on the ballot, those states who found Trump guilty along with most states where Trump is on the ballot as those other states haven’t found Trump guilty or even tried him.

There’s another aspect of this, Trump could be allowed on the ballot, but the secretary of state could refuse Trump’s slate of electors. In other words, allow Trump on the ballot, but with no slate of electors to cast electoral vote for him. This seems a roundabout way as it assumes other states operate their general election for the presidency the same as Georgia does which I’m not sure about.

Here’s what happened in New Mexico when a county commissioner was found guilty of insurrection on J6:

https://www.citizensforethics.org/n...-engaging-in-the-january-6-insurrection/

There is no need of a trial. It a was a qualification hearing. Does candidate satisfy all the requirements to run for office, including the test that he had taken an oath of office to defend etc the Constitution and then not participated in an insurrection against the Constitution. In this case and only in this state was the candidate questioned over the requirement of 13th Amendment Sec 3. Due process is accorded by the fact there was a hearing of determination and it was predetermined that which ever way the judge ruled, there would be an appeal to higher courts. That there was no trial does not abrogate actual due process. The judge made a finding i,e, Trump did participate in an insurrection, which carries enough weight throughout the due process to be pursued. Trump had an opportunity to testify but didn't. In MTG case Appeals Court dismissed the challenge. In other states an election board makes the determination.

There is plenty of due process.

When a candidate enters an election race their goal is to win i.e take the oath of office. If a candidate had previously taken the oath of office to defend etc the Constitution and then participated in an insurrection against the same, it would incumbent on election boards to disqualify such an individual from running. How that is done is different in the several states, but in each there is due process ti ensure democracy continues and remains Constitutional.

It can't be done at the federal level since each state has the sole authority and right to determine how elections are run in each of the several states.

Shades of the "Green Bay Sweep". That idea is the equivalent of VP Pence rejecting certified elector votes, disenfranchising voters, and replacing with a Secretary of State doing the same. I think this is why the insurrectionist candidate must be disqualified prior to an election.

No, actually. It was a trial of the issue.

Don't trials have juries unless it's a summary judgement that all parties agree to?