I didn't see a thread on this, so I wanted to start one. I'll start with the opinion that this may very well have legs, and that there is some chance (some) that the Supreme Court will not undercut the effort. We'll have to wait and see on that, but it is going to get there, and likely quickly.

So, to background and concepts: The 14th Amendment, clause 3, states (in pertinent part) -
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
No person shall ... 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,... 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.

A number of questions arise that may be (or have been) taken up by courts under this provision:
First, who can bring such a claim?
Second, does Congress need to create a process for this?
Third, has Congress removed such a disability?
Fourth, who has authority to reach the question (State, federal, or Supreme Court, for example, or only Congress)?

Cases that are now under consideration:
Supreme Court declines to consider longshot bid to disqualify Trump from running for president (A lower court had thrown out Castro’s case, ruling that he lacked the legal right – or standing – to bring the challenge, and his petition to the high court had asked the justices to decide whether he did have standing in the matter.) Frankly, the question Castro brought, and his standing, should have been addressed, but wasn't;

What’s next in the Colorado trial to remove Trump from the ballot based on the 14th Amendment(CNN)
'Witness testimony wrapped up Friday in former President Donald Trump’s 14th Amendment disqualification trial in Colorado, setting the stage for a historic ruling later this month.

The weeklong trial featured testimony from legal scholars who explained the history of the amendment’s “insurrectionist ban,” US Capitol Police officers who were wounded while fighting the pro-Trump mob on January 6, 2021, organizers of the Trump rally that preceded the violence, two House lawmakers and an expert on right-wing extremism.

Closing arguments are slated for November 15, and a ruling is expected soon after that.";
Trump 14th Amendment disqualification efforts reach Minnesota Supreme Court(The Hill)
"Efforts to keep former President Trump off the ballot under the 14th Amendment reached the Minnesota Supreme Court on Thursday, with several justices during oral arguments appearing wary that they should be the ones to determine Trump’s eligibility.

The case, brought by a left-leaning nonprofit, is one of multiple across the country seeking to prevent Trump from returning to the presidency under the clause, which provides that anyone who took an oath to support the Constitution but then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” cannot hold office.

Thursday’s arguments concerned several legal issues the nonprofit must prevail on so their case can move ahead: Does the clause apply to presidents? Can the provision be enforced without legislation from Congress? Is the issue a political question outside of the court’s authority?

Five Minnesota Supreme Court justices, four of whom were appointed by Democrats, are weighing the case after two others on the court recused. Several justices Thursday expressed concerns about the various threshold issues.

“I think your argument about the political question doctrine is — I think that’s a very serious problem for the other side on this case,” Justice Barry Anderson told Trump’s attorney."

I think everyone should find Judge Luttig's remarks, as it clarifies what I believe is an inaccuracy reporting the the "crime".

Judge Luttig believes the phrase "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same" refers to the Constitution, not the United States. He argues you don't have to prove Trump led the riot, or incited the riot, etc, but rather prove he conspired to subvert the Constitution itself by concocting a plan to retain power in contravention to the Constitutional process.

Looks straightforward to me (of course after all the legal questions have been answered mentioned above).

I typed words to the effect in 2016, that every possible legal possibility Trump may subvert the Constitution be brought before courts, so all the legal questions would be preemptively answered for the eventuality Trump would actually act in direct contradiction to the Constitution. Seems I was correct in my thinking.

Trump's insurrection trial's jury selection begins February 9, 2024. I think these 14th amendment lawsuits came too early. They suits should have waited until Jack Smith proved that Donald Trump fomented an insurrection. Many of the J6 defendants will be a witness to Trump's DC insurrection trial as they have testified they would not have come to DC on J6 if it were not for Donald Trump's election lies of a "stolen" election.

I think you should review Luttig's remarks on the issue

I believe there is a two part reading which is an important distinction. First is as you say, the actual insurrection. According to the 14th amendment, an insurrection lead by or perpetrated by people who have not taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, would not be covered. These folks would be covered by existing laws regarding insurrection against the United States. Second would be those who had taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution (as is the case of Trump) and participated as outlined by the 14th Amendment, those people would be held accountable according to the 14th Amendment, which would mean inability to run for or hold elected office.

Apparently the Shaman can run for office in AZ and not be taken off ballot for his participation in insurrection, but Trump because he allegedly (according to public records and evidence) participated in an insurrection can not run for elected office according to 14th Amendment.

So, what all of that means is, it is not necessary to prove he led the physical insurrection at the capitol, but rather demonstrate he participated in a plan to subvert the Constitution by promoting fake electors and stopping the Constitutional proceedings. There is enough public records and evidence to sustain the allegation, and therefore we should conclude Trump should not be allowed on the ballot.

As to the issue of timing, I suspect you are correct. It would be better to use the evidence which Smith has found and then file suit. However, the issues involved are more complex than at first reading. There is too much ambiguity in the language for mere lower courts. It will have to be brought before the Supremes seeking their imprimatur.

Yup, the suits were brought too soon.

Link

Colorado Judge Sarah Wallace’s opinion finding that Trump did engage in incitement, but can’t be disqualified because the President is not clearly an “officer” under the Fourteenth Amendment.

I'll come back to the officer part later.

Leaving the decision to remove or disallow a candidate from the ballot without a fair trial to determine guilt is open to abuse. It might get Trump off a few ballots this year, but such a precedent could provide legal cover for a swing state Sec of State or judge to keep Biden off the ballot based on allegations which might not hold up were it subject to rules of evidence.

A fair trial is foundational to our American system.

Wallace’s opinion is best understood as a punt to Colorado’s Supreme Court: a finding of facts that which they will eventually decide how to apply. She says as much in a footnote: She made the finding of fact that Trump did engage in insurrection so the Colorado Supreme Court can resolve any appeal without coming back to her.

Trump’s side did not present evidence to fight the claim of insurrection. Trump’s legal expert, Robert Delahunty presented no definition of insurrection that wouldn’t include January 6. No evidence was presented to back his claim that Trump intended to call out 10,000 members of the National Guard. Trump's side presented no evidence that criminal conviction was required before disqualification. There was no evidence presented that Trump did not support the mob’s purpose.

Finding Trump not "an officer" is a stretch given that Trump swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States when he was inaugurated POTUS on January 20, 2017.

As I wrote in the posts above this one, these suits to disqualify Trump from the ballot were brought too soon.

I have a hard time getting my head around this ruling. To me, Trump either did or didn’t give aid or abetted in an insurrection, he either is or isn’t an insurrectionist. The 14th seems all encompassing to me.

The ruling makes no sense to me. Outside of punting the problem to a higher court. Or perhaps allowing Trump on the ballot for the primaries which isn’t electing anyone to office. The ruling allowed Trump to run for the GOP nomination in Colorado and perhaps in the general election. Colorado even if Trump is allowed to run in the general election isn’t about to win that state anyway. If Trump is on the ballot or not in Colorado is kind of a moot point. But the ruling only applies to Colorado and not the other 49 states. You could have a situation where Trump isn’t on the ballot in Colorado and perhaps a couple or more other states, but is on the rest.

It seems this ruling didn’t mean much as to Trump running for the presidency, but it did rule or classify Trump as being an insurrectionist. Only in the state of Colorado, not the rest. Ultimately, the SCOTUS will have to decide all of this. So, I guess I just sit back, relax, have a cup of coffee or two and wait and see what happens.

Ultimately, the Colorado SecState will file an appeal. The Colorado's Supreme Court will make the final determination.

I certainly disagree with the judge’s strange rationale the the 14th doesn’t apply to the President, according to some contortional language gymnastics.

Here’s the oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The word “support” isn’t in there, but three words that are a fairly comprehensive definition of support are.

One comment, the 14th says an insurrectionist can’t hold an office, but it doesn’t say they can’t run.

Was Lyndon Johnson a closet insurrectionist? “If elected, I shall not serve…”

The Colorado decision took place as a hearing; not a trial. Just putting that out there.

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?

Sorry, I neglected this thread, and didn't answer your question.

In short, no. A trial is a determination of facts and law in an adversarial proceding before a judge. It often includes a jury, but in most cases, it does not. Some trials never even trigger a jury requirement - for example "mandamus", "declarative" and "equity" cases (like injunctions). This is one of those. It's a "declaratory" action (declaring that Trump is an unqualified candidate) seeking "equitable relief" - barring him from appearing on the ballot.

A "hearing" is a broader term, and includes many things that are not full trials, like administrative and congressional "hearings". But it also includes discrete portions of a trial proceeding, like motions. A "summary judgment" is just one kind of such motion, but can conclude a "trial". It is one kind of "merits" motion. If you think of it as a Venn diagram, trial and hearings overlap. A trial is mostly a type of hearing.

A "merits motion" truncates the trial process, but is still considered a trial, as it often includes testimony and other presentation of evidence. It did here. In addition to summary judgment, "merits motions" include "directed verdicts" and some "dismissals". This issue falls into that category.

Funny thing about the judge's ruling. Look at the 22nd amendment:

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term

It mentions the "office of President" six times.

There's movement - Test case’ for America: Colorado’s top court poised to weigh Trump’s eligibility to run again

https://www.yahoo.com/news/test-case-america-colorado-top-100000342.html

There is a problem for most conservatives with that conclusion. No where does it explicitly use the words
"officer of the government". Conservatives (not philosophers) are in general concrete thinkers. If you don't use the exact and precise words, they will object. It is one of the main problems trying to communicate with conservatives.

Regardless of opinion, it will be taken before the Supremes for their imprimatur.

How about this. The legislators pass legislation to have the Supremes study all the evidence and then decides what happens with Trump. This puts a stop to all the time being wasted until Trump can be president and then save himself. Given that virtually all current trump indictments are headed for the Supremes anyway why not just start and end there thereby solving a LOT of problems.

I actually believe something like the above just might work and settle a LOT of existing problems right now. I can't think of anything that might be more important than this and its really time to put the Supremes to the test as well.

Oh, just to mix it all up I would also hope to have the entire thing filmed in its entirety for "eventual" publication. Now, that might gets some jaws going!!

I believe I typed the very words in 2016 when Trump was elected i.e. every imaginable Constitutional infringement Trump could have done while occupant of WH should have been brought before the SC to answer the very questions we all know he will bring as a defense of his alleged criminal activities as occupant of WH.

Many of those who thought that was being hyperbolic then, and remained thinking that as MAGA assaulted the Capitol, have continued the think, should Trump win in 2024, he will not become the dictator he so wants to be ... delusional ... all delusional. This is the slowly boiling frog which does not jump out of the pot, or as Rep Cheney said ... America is "sleepwalking into dictatorship".

We are enemies of the state, and just don't know it.

You were right, in the good old days. Now we may have another chance, with a LOT more information! Jack Smith, the guy going after Trump for the feds, is, exactly doing the right thing right now. He is trying to get the Supremes to do their job on Trump and skip all the other stuff in the middle. That is an excellent start and makes great sense as the Supremes will end up with everything anyway. If he gets that one there is no reason that he can't also get the main one dealt with as well, thereby skipping, again, all the stuff Trump does to stretch it and then forgive himself when he becomes president (seems his chances of becoming president might be good). If he actually gets convicted, especially for going against the constitution a whole new deal will appear. Right now, I think, its being discounted and that will continue until he is actually convicted.

I am, incidentally, assuming that they have Trump to rights.

I also suspect that his chances might decline if the Democrats wake up, smell the roses, and start to fight back. So far such is few and far between. They just don't seem to be getting it.

Should, I guess, also mention that the Supremes are kinda in a mess due to their own greed and not give a damn. This whole thing will change that if they actually agree to go after Trump right now! Then, of course, the real question is going to be which indictment will be acted upon first (there are a LOT of indictments!). On the other hand they might not go after Trump, thereby giving Trump enough time deal with all his problems. If they do that they are going to be in a pile of pain I suspect.

I also wonder, if Trump becomes president can, he only save himself from federal stuff or can he also free himself from those indictments from states.

When all of the pieces mysteriously fall in to place, and Trump is again our president, it will have no affect!
A dictator is above all of that!

You are correct. Trump will order every jurisdiction which has convicted him to pardon him. Then he will round up everyone who has offended him, detain them until he can find a crime with which to charge them and expedite the proceedings straight to prison.

Note the several impeachment committees are doing just that already i.e. trying to find a high crime or misdemeanor by looking for evidence of a crime which probably doesn't exist, as there is probably no such crime. Also note this will not stop Trump. When there is no criminal statue nor evidence of a crime, he will fabricate the evidence to fit a criminal statue ex post facto, completely disregarding the Constitution, as it no longer applies to him of his loyalists.

Democracy loving Americans live in dangerous times.

Shame is, I think most people don't even know it, or believe that it could happen here.

Maybe a reality check or two? How many democracy loving Americans do you think there are. On average 45% of all Americans never bother to vote in a presidential election. That increases to 60% who don’t vote in the midterms and in local elections not held with the presidential or midterms elections, around 80% never vote. Last school board election along with splosh tax approval in July here, voter turnout was 14%. If one doesn’t even bother to vote, would you classify them as democracy loving Americans? Perhaps most Americans take democracy for granted?

As for “Trump is out to destroy democracy,” many folks out there who do pay some if any attention to politics take this as a democratic party and Biden’s reelection campaign slogan, a vote for me slogan. Another negative campaign political ad or something akin to that. People have become use to negative political campaigns ads, negative personal attacks, they take them in stride, pay little if any attention to them. Our elections are saturated with negative ads. About the only people this is resonating with is politically active democrats who dislike Trump.

Perhaps this general lack of attention to politics and most Americans non-active roles in politics to include voting is why Trump is leading Biden in the polls today. People going by whether they like a candidate or not, not what each stand for? It’s a fact most Americans dislike and don’t want neither Biden nor Trump as their next president.

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/trump-vs-biden

LOL ... coming from a person who pooh poohed the idea Trump could possibly think about not leaving the WH and could possibly lead an insurrection against the Constitution and the US .... yikes!!!!

So lets consider your stats. I believe I have always referred to my favorite non scientific stat most Americans are too ignorant to vote and you verify that with numbers. This leaves a small number of people to actually consider. A large percent of these folks are partisans i.e. they follow the party line with their talking points, propaganda, etc. So when I refer to Democracy loving Americans I am referring to only a very small group of people. Remember it was a small group of future Americans who actually participated in the Revolutionary War. My conclusion has always been there is but a very small number of people who think on a philosophical level of the nature of the idea of Democracy. The rest are as you suggest either take Democracy for granted or have, as you did not suggest, become anti-Democratic.

Regarding "negative campaign ads": if the information contained in the ad is accurate and the intention is to alert voters to deficiencies in an opponent on a number of levels, then I have no problem with them. I am sure you can think of some examples but I'll type a couple for your consideration. If the presidency is all about a person of character and one candidate is a habitual liar, sexual predator, fraudster, etc I think it would incumbent on that persons opponent to warn people of such bad character ... if character is important to the office. Another example would be if one candidate rails against the very institutions which embody our Democracy with calls for weaponization of the government to go after political opponents unjustifiably or to put it a different way, someone who is an existential threat to Democracy, I think people should be alerted to the dangers of that person .... if Democracy has any importance.

I have fairly good understanding of why people support Trump but no idea why he would be polling at 50%. Spitballing ... people have become enamored with autocracies ... people actually believe the vile elixir coming from his mouth ... people are completely ignorant or partisan (see above) ... or ???

As for a number ... 1 ... yep I know I am such a person and I feel I may become an enemy of the state if Trump should be elected

So, the Supremes can mess with State Supremes. All this talk about the Supremes make me very antsy. I wonder, has anybody considered that this stuff just might, eventually, end if with a group assigned to re-consitute the Supreme Court (there is a term for the which slips my mind). Anyway, think about this. I scares the hell out of me. Once can only wonder if a specific group were to be assigned to such. I also suspect there are some already considering such.

One piece has fallen into place...

Michigan Supreme Court rejects case to remove Trump from 2024 ballot

Well, it seems this thread is seriously in need of an update!

I am going to throw up a bunch of links to bring it up to speed, and sometime in the near term a rather lengthy opinion about what is about to happen. The Supreme Court has accepted Certiorari of Trump's appeal from the Colorado Supreme Court decision in Anderson v. Griswold. The question accepted by the Supreme Court was simply:

"Did the Colorado Supreme Court err in ordering President Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot?"

Subsumed within that question are a number of specific issues. In its Order, the Colorado Supreme Court listed its conclusions succinctly:

"We hold as follows:

•The Election Code allows the Electors to challenge President Trump’s status as a qualified candidate based on Section Three. Indeed, the Election Code provides the Electors their only viable means of litigating whether President Trump is disqualified from holding office under Section Three.

•Congress does not need to pass implementing legislation for Section Three’s disqualification provision to attach, and Section Three is, in that sense, self-executing.

•Judicial review of President Trump’s eligibility for office under Section Three is not precluded by the political question doctrine.

•Section Three encompasses the office of the Presidency and someone who has taken an oath as President[.]

•The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting portions of Congress’s January 6 Report into evidence at trial.

•The district court did not err in concluding that the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021,constituted an “insurrection.”

•The district court did not err in concluding that President Trump “engaged in” that insurrection through his personal actions.

•President Trump’s speech inciting the crowd that breached the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021,was not protected by the First Amendment.

The sum of these parts is this: President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three; because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Secretary to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot."

The Trial Court below conducted a five-day trial on the merits, including testimony of a number of witnesses, and issued a comprehensive order on the merits: Final Order

The Maine Secretary of State reached very similar conclusions.

This is probably the most interesting legal issue I have dealt with recently, as there are so many parts to it - legal, factual, and constitutional. Also, I am very opinionated on the subject, but I am going to try to be as strictly neutral in this thread as I think I can be. There is a very good chance that the Supreme Court will find a way to avoid the question, and I have a suspicion how they will do it. But before I get to that, I thought I'd lay out what I think the issues that are included will be.

In the interim, the D.C. Circuit is going to be deciding the Immunity claim that Trump has made, and I think that case is going to catch up and be consolidated with this one. It only makes sense.

The first Question is: Does the 14th Amendment apply to the President? If not (as the Colorado District Court held), then the case is over. This turns on the wording of the 14th Amendment itself:
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
No person shall ... 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,... 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.

The argument that Trump has made is that this does not apply to the President. I think that argument is absurd, but it is just the kind of thing that can persuade a judge (or Justice). The argument turns on whether the "Presidency" is an "office" and the President an "officer" of the United States. Since the Constitution, in 25 separate instances refers to the "Office of the President", it seems pretty obvious to anyone, but there is a way out of it, because Congress members are specifically mentioned, but the President is not.

In dealing with this issue, the Colorado Supreme Court did a very careful analysis: "Section Three applies to President Trump only if (1)the Presidency is an “office, civil or military, under the United States”; (2) the President is an “officer of the United States”; and (3) the presidential oath set forth in Article II constitutes an oath “to support the Constitution of the United States.”

Without repeating all of their citations, they concluded, "our reading of both the constitutional text and the[b] historical record[/b] counsel that the Presidency is an “office... under the United States” within the meaning of Section Three." In that regard, they have a pretty good point.

In determining, additionally, that "the President" is an "officer" they listed "four reasons":

"First, the normal and ordinary usage of the term “officer of the United States” includes the President. As we have explained, the plain meaning of “office...under the United States” includes the Presidency; it follows then that the President is an “officer of the United States.”"
....
"Second, Section Three’s drafters and their contemporaries understood the President as an officer of the United States."
....
"Third, the structure of Section Three persuades usthat the President is an officer of the United States."
....
"Fourth, the clear purpose of Section Three—to ensure that disloyal officers could never again play a role in governing the country—leaves no room to conclude that “officer of the United States” was used as a term of art."

Finally, the Colorado Supreme Court determined that "The Presidential Oath Is an Oath to Support the Constitution", specifically because "Article VI of the Constitution provides that “all executive and judicial Officers... of the United States . .. shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.” and that "The language of the presidential oath—a commitment to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution”—is consistent with the plain meaning of the word “support.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 8."

Thank you for the interesting summary. Not meaning to be rude and maybe I didn't understand what you are saying properly, but I don't see the part about how the supreme court will avoid the question.


I am not an attorney, and do not know much about lawyering, but it seems to me that if it is a requirement, like being at least 35 years old and being a natural born citizen, it is pretty obvious how Trump manipulated his followers to commit insurrection and attempt to stop the change of power in our government that day. Thus, he did take part in the insurrection - a large part!

And, I do believe they will avoid the question and ignore the constitution and it will be interesting to see how they do it. And another piece will fall in to place for Trump to make his way to dictatorship in America.

You are right, I hadn't gotten to that part, yet. There are just so many issues to address, it is hard to even list them all!

The dilemma I see for the Court is this: it only takes 4 votes to accept Certiorari, and there are diametrically opposed motivations for doing so. Chief Justice Roberts, in particular, will want to reach unanimity on such a weighty issue, and that will be extremely difficult given the sharp ideological differences on the Court , and the myriad of issues to resolve. As Jennifer Rubin put it in You can bet on the Supreme Court’s abject partisanship (WaPo): "By any objective reading of the Constitution, four-times-indicted former president Donald Trump should be disqualified from holding office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court will have a hard time reversing the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision applying Section 3, but that doesn’t mean it won’t."

"While the court could wade into the substance – either endorsing the Colorado Supreme Court finding that Trump "engaged in insurrection" on Jan. 6, 2021, or overturning it with a contrary analysis of the facts – a swift narrow or technical decision may be the most advantageous approach for a court looking to avoid being cast as interfering with the election." Might the Supreme Court try to sidestep key Trump 14th Amendment questions? ANALYSIS (abc)

Here are some of the "ducks" they might employ:

1) The easiest, and least satisfying "off ramp" for the Court - but one that they take all too frequently - is to determine the issue is not yet "ripe" at the "access to the ballot" stage. Or that the Petitioners didn't have "standing" to raise the issue. That may indeed have been the motivation for some of the Justices to accept Certiorari, since the cases below are effectively "stayed" awaiting their determination. Like Trump, they are big fans of delay. Why decide today what can be put off to tomorrow?

The NRSC is urging that position: "Even if the Colorado Supreme Court were correct that President Trump cannot take office on Inauguration Day, that court had no basis to hold that he cannot run for office on Election Day," [Former Trump Solicitor General Noel] Francisco wrote in a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the National Republican Senatorial Committee." (Same source)

2) They may see this as a "political question", best left to the vicissitudes of elections and Congress to decide (through the election processes), and hope that it becomes moot because Trump might not get elected. I think that is a cop out, but something they are prone to do, nonetheless. I can see them using all kinds of platitudes to say that it is the "most democratic" solution.

"There's a fairly good chance that they'll find a way to duck that," said Harvard Law professor emeritus and constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe. "They'll say it's a political question, not for us, for the voters. Or, they might try to say it's ultimately a constitutional question for the voters to decide." (Same source)

I think that is the weakest, and most dangerous, position to take, because it puts an insurrectionist closer to actually getting power again. After all, it was on that very stage that January 6, 2021 occurred. It would be inviting a repeat. It is also the same excuse that the Senate used to duck the second Impeachment.

3) They may also determine that it is an issue that has to be resolved at the federal level, since this is a federal office, thus distinguishing many of the previous cases which dealt with State officers, and remand it for such consideration below. I think this, too, is a cop out, and inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution. But being consistent with the Constitution is, of late, not their forte.

4) They may also say that it is up to Congress to set a standard for what constitutes disqualification - that Section 3 is not "self-executing" - even if that is completely the opposite of its history and intent. The argument that "he hasn't been convicted" is frequently raised by Trump apologists, but that has never been the standard - or expected standard - in Section 3's history. ("contrary to Trump apologists, there is no requirement in the text requiring a conviction before the disqualification. Had the framers intended to make that a precondition, they surely would have said so." - Rubin)

That position is also implicit in the RNC argument, and, again, extremely dangerous. Congress is completely unfunctional right now. Do you think they could make such a weighty decision when they can't even pass a budget?

It's also really bad analysis, because the language presupposes that a determination of "insurrection" has already been made as it is up to Congress to remove that disability, so it's begging the question, "who decisdes?". But, again, pushing difficult questions back to Congress is something that this Supreme Court is wont to do.

As Jennifer Rubin puts it: "An honest originalist would be compelled to agree with the Colorado Supreme Court. Our democracy disallows certain candidates for president — e.g., foreign-born people, insurrectionists. As constitutional scholar Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said on CNN’s “State of the Union,” “I have got a colleague who’s a great young politician, Maxwell Frost. He’s 26. He can’t run for president. Now, would we say that that’s undemocratic? Well, that’s the rules of the Constitution. If you don’t like the rules of the Constitution, change the Constitution.”"

For those really into reading, I think the Maine Secretary of State's decision is a succinct and compelling analysis:
https://www.maine.gov/sos/news/2023...20Presidential%20Primary%20Petitions.pdf

The most recent Petitions/Objections/Complaints in Illinois and Massachusetts reference the Colorado and Maine decisions, are very specific and do an excellent job of laying out State jurisdictional bases for removing Trump from their respective ballots. I think that will make it difficult for the Supreme Court to rule otherwise.

Here's a simplified version of the arguments from the BBC:

The 14th Amendment plan to disqualify Trump, explained

I suspect that the Supremes are waiting for a court to actually convict Trump of messing with the constitution before he can be kept from running. The problem is that there isn't enough time for that to happen and I fully expect him to skate because he was never convicted.

Seems pretty simple to me. The Trump ongoing plan with time seems to be pretty good for him..... and, pretty much, defines one of the main problems with the working of our justice system.

Thanks again NW for the summary. Me, being plain ol' Jim, believe that your last paragraph says how I feel they should rule. However, that's going to open up a whole new can of worms!

I typed the words some 8 years ago, that people need to have brought suits against Trump for every conceivable Constitutional perversion he would attempt pre-emptivey, in order not to have to deal with so many issues in such a constrained time span prior to an election.

And guess what we have .... Constitutional splatter

Said splatter being part and parcel of Constitutional rot.

Trump may not even make it that far. Yesterday Donald Trump claimed that Nikki Haley was Speaker of the House, and appeared to suggest that George Conway was the capital of New Hampshire. If none of those words seem to go together, it’s because they don’t. At this point nothing Trump says makes any sense. His brain is failing on every level. If you’ve ever known anyone who’s suffered from dementia, you know that it comes on gradually until it starts accelerating, at which point it quickly goes off a cliff.

But it’s not just Trump’s brain that’s rotting. He’s got these red sores on his hand that people think is a disease - 2nd stage syphillis (sores, dementia). More tellingly, he’s so far gone cognitively, it’s not even occurring to him that he should have someone put something on his hand sores to cover them up before going out in public.

Trump supporters love the authenticity of word salad diarrhea, or are they being conned by cognitive decline.

Regardless, nothing changes the fact he is the prototypical example for narcissistic personality disorder.

Trump, the SCOTUS, his campaign, the trials and the 14th amendment.

Why the Supreme Court could matter more than Iowa and New Hampshire

https://www.yahoo.com/news/next-stop-trump-path-presumptive-100000502.html

The DOJ hasn’t taken a stance on whether Trump is an insurrectionist or not. Apparently, the DOJ won’t file any briefs or present the U.S. Governments view on Trump being an insurrectionist to the SCOTUS.

As Supreme Court weighs Trump’s eligibility, the ‘10th justice’ stays mum

https://www.yahoo.com/news/showdown-over-trump-eligibility-biden-212208282.html

I know we are lost as a Democracy when politics gets in the way of the Constitution.

I'll be working on the obit.

I created a pic for the occasion but can't figure out how to post the picture. I don't have a web link, it is on my PC.

Some of you Zappa fans might remember "Is that a real poncho or is that a Sears poncho?" from Cozmik Debris.
Well, after several years of MAGA projection on Sleepy Joe's mental fitness, we now realize that was the Sears poncho.
This is the REAL poncho in action.

There are SO MANY reasons that Donald Trump is unqualified for the presidency. First, he was never qualified, and his four years in the White House demonstrated that in spades. Second, he is not cognitively well. He is unraveling before our eyes. While he has always been only marginally competent, he is fading faster than a week old mushroom left on the counter. He is certainly less competent, at this juncture, than Joe Biden. Finally, he is a disgraceful traitor to the country and the Constitution, as the 91 felony counts in four indictments demonstrate. More specifically, his violation of his oath and engaging in insurrection bar him, constitutionally, from taking office. We should be very cognizant of who he picks as his running mate.

The Trump problem needs to be done by the supremes. I know, the supremes also problems of their own. Right now I think there are about 3 specifics that they are considering. I suspect that there are, probably, 10 or 20 more that will also end up in the hands of the supremes as well. The problem is that there is no reason to think that they won't just do nothing.

I don't think the supremes are going to do the job because, basically, there isn't enough time to deal with the stuff that needs to be dealt with given how long virtually anything in the courts takes, especially the tough stuff.

I have no idea what else to say about this. The United States has a mess and the mess is not being dealt with. Trump figured it out. He is an expert in dealing with laws and courts. Its really pretty simple - extend, extend, extend until it makes no difference due to this and that. I am not even convinced that anybody actually gives a damn.

Its gonna get seriously interesting before it just all comes apart.

The Supremes will shortly hear the case. Not being an attorney nor having any additional legal background, it would be hard to make an intelligent comment on the case itself. From my perspective, after reading the Amendment and applying public records for consideration of an argument, I believe he should be disqualified, as well as many other elected officials currently serving in Congress, and all of those who were previous office holders and took the Oath to support the Constitution and participated in Trump Insurrection.

Sooo ... I'm thinking, How will the Supremes rule? Having read numerous articles from legal scholars, I can see them punting ... they're weak and see the political ramifications. I can see them upholding Colorado, and therefore by transitive action, disqualify Trump from all ballots. I can also see them doing the usual Originalist gymnastics of lying they are Originalists and then doing the political thing, saying the 14th doesn't apply to Trump or any other Insurrectionists.

Another possibility is they will rule Trump can run but cannot take office. Yikes!!! First, if he wins, how do the Supremes keep him from taking the Oath? Who would enforce the court order???? Second, what is the process? For instance, following the 14th, and suppose Republicans win both Houses of Congress, it would be a foregone conclusion they would allow Trump to become an officeholder. And what if Republicans do not control both Houses? Is the House the sole arbiter???? At what point does Democracy actual die??? or is it already dead we have not heard the news? or are we just too frakking dense to admit the odor we smell is the rotting corpse of Democracy.

I want to hear what is on the minds of thinking people.

From having this discussion on another site, I’d like to point of that the 14th amendment has different sections, which section 5 states – “The congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Which section 3 is a provision of this article or the 14th amendment. Congress did pass legislation stating the south was in a state of insurrection signed into law by President Lincoln. After ratification congress did pass numerous laws dealing with enforcement of the entire 14th amendment. Then in 1872 congress passed the amnesty act rescinding most if not all laws dealing with section 3. No such appropriate legislation was passed dealing with 1-6 nor has the president, the DOJ, Homeland security or any other federal agency declared or stated 1-6 was an insurrection nor do any of the 91 federal indictments charge Trump with insurrection. Not having done so, this could be your punt by the SCOTUS.

I don’t speak lawyerese, the SCOTUS will read and interpret the constitution in lawyerese, not in plain English. But if the federal government to include congress, the president, all other federal government agencies never declared nor stated 1-6 was an insurrection per section 5 with the appropriate legislation, then the SCOTUS may or might interpret since this wasn’t done, 1-6 wasn’t an insurrection officially and legally. Thus, making section 3 applying to Trump, null, void and moot.

If you believe that is a valid interpretation of the Amendment, then I will conclude based on your logic, all laws which did not specifically mention any one singularly, that law does not apply.

Open the prisons ... everyone is free to go since no law mentioned you specifically.

You're correct that many laws were passed regarding the 14th and I believe if you read the history of them, they specifically targeted former members of the Confederacy specifically, including, I believe, Jeff Davis. However, the 14th was not repealed. The amendment remains in effect and addresses, as the writers maintained, insurrection in general, although it was instigated in particular by the people who had taken an oath to uphold and support the Constitution and then fought against it in an insurrection. Thus we should conclude it applies to ALL insurrections.

Congressional interdiction by passing laws which allowed former insurrectionists to hold elected office is an example of how Trump could be allowed to hold office. The House would certainly pass a bill which exonerates Trump of any act of insurrection. The question would be, is that enough? As far as "enforcement", if a state passed a law which states any insurrectionist hold an elected office, then Congress could and should pass laws which would supersede the state law. This is how it was done regarding civil rights issues and thus, it would be how it would be done regarding Trump's Insurrection. Since no state has passed laws allowing insurrections to hold office, there is no need for Congress to address the issue and "enforce" the amendment.

I think the "punt" is to rule it is a state issue, until it becomes a federal (Constitutional) issue. Thus, for example, if the states allow him to run for the House, the House could seat him despite the fact he is an insurrectionist. The Senate would not allow him to be seated. And lastly if he wins the general, who would enforce the 14th and not allow him to take the oath? At that point the Supremes would have to rule, since he has to take the oath from the Chief Justice. Or Justice Roberts could ignore the Constitution and simply administer the oath.

Now if you believe we are still a Democracy, then I think you are sadly mistaken. You may as well install Trump as king and all in his line as kings in waiting. I suspect it is worse than I imagine. Think Texas ... JD Vance ...

Trump, I think, is slowly, but surely, getting himself deeper and deeper in trouble. Now that he did not have the right to do whatever he wanted when he was president and the additional little thing about him being a CITIZEN and NOT A PRESIDENT things are changing a bit.

I have come to the conclusion that the supremes are not going to do anything about Trump until he is tried and convicted of conspiracy to take over. Once that happens he will then be convicted and, I suspect, will not be allowed to run for president if he gets convicted of his conspiracy because he has been legally convicted to doing the crime,.

I think this is what the Supremes are waiting for. Once he has been convicted the Supremes will have all they need to remove Mr. Trump from running for office in the United States of America as per the constitution of the United States of America.

One last. I am basing all this on his conviction. If he beats it and they don't convict him he gets to run. Seems pretty simple.........

Be still my heart!

Today's extremely well-written U.S. Appellate Court ruling is the bitch-slap that Trump has so richly deserved for such a VERY LONG time. Kudos to Justices Henderson, Pan, and Childs.

Today's ruling will take care of the 14th amendment question as well: Trump IS an insurrectionist.

But, but, Trump was in no way part of an insurrection!

Gaetz, Stefanik offer resolution declaring Trump ‘did not engage in insurrection’


Doesn't this prove it?!??

Republicans have not been able to get their act together since McCarthy was voted out of Speakership. Their entire caucus is a crap show.

A lower-court judge has ruled that Trump DID commit insurrection and being a former POTUS does not allow Trump NOT to be held accountable - as Trump claims. Yesterday's Applellate Court ruling reaffirmed this fact.

They can pass a resolution stating Trump is the son of God .... doesn't make it so. I watched these clowns making their case. If these guys showed up in my logic class, they would not make it through the class ... it's too logical.

Yikes!!!!

The Supremes will overturn Colorado.

This opens up the very real possibility Trump easily wins (see Hurr's Report) and we are faced with a Constitutional crisis whether Trump meets qualifications for presidency if he is an insurrectionist. If Congress does not lift restriction of an insurrectionist .... gee I don't know where to go with this .... Supremes ... complete breakdown of federal government ... who would be in charge .... Russia, Iran, China taking advantage .... I see dystopian future

Not one SCOTUS judge attempted tp define or clarify the term, insurrection.

Trump is already asking Jack Smith via Trump’s Truth Social account, to forgive all of Trump’s crimes and let bygones be bygones, based upon the direction that the SCOTUS sounds like its headed in.

On the questions of determining if an insurrection occurred, and if Trump participated in it, both the House and the Senate voted unambiguously that the answer is “yes” and “yes”.

The single article of impeachment concerning J6 was this:

ARTICLE I: INCITEMENT OF INSURRECTION

The House of Representatives voted 232 aye, 192 nay.

In the Senate trial on the same article, the body voted 57 guilty, 43 not guilty.

How is this not simple and clear evidence of violation of the 14th Amendment?

I've been seeing this for months now.

And, yesterday, another piece fell into place!

Hey kids,
Been away for awhile (vacation and things).

I was very disappointed with the SCOTUS hearing, since none of the Justices addressed the Elephant in the room. But, I am gratified that at least the New York cases are proceeding apace. $454 million dollars, plus E. Jean Carroll's $83 million. Pretty soon we'll be talking real money....

And March 25 begins jury selection in the 2016 election interference case. There is so much criming going on that it is hard to remember that this is more than just a hush money case. I think the third time will be the charm (since Trump Org was already convicted of falsifying records, and Trump has been found liable for falsifying records, this one might actually give him an actual conviction).

So, while it appears SCOTUS is getting ready to duck the 14th Amendment case (and they shouldn't), at least he will not be free to keep committing felonies right and left.... maybe.

The SCOTUS by a 8-1 or 9-0 seems set to place Trump back on the ballot. At least that how the oral arguments seem to indicate. You have section 5 of the 14th, “Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” Congress did pass legislation declaring the south in a state of insurrection which was signed into law by the president. Then there were numerous laws passed by congress after the ratification of the 14th dealing with the south. This wasn’t done for 1-6 nor has any federal government, congress, the president, DOJ, Homeland security, etc. ever declared or stated 1-6 was an insurrection. Nor does any of the 91 federal indictments charge Trump with insurrection. Also, at question is can a state declare someone an insurrectionist on its own or is that a federal government responsibility? Punt is what I think the SCOTUS will do as to Trump’s ballot access.

Now add the Georgia case to the New York cases. There’s no doubt in my mind Trump interfered with Georgia’s 2020 election. His interference is on tape when he asked our secretary of state to find 11,780 votes out of the clear thin air. It took balls to tell the president no. Trump will get his, this I have no doubt.

I agree with all of your post except the bolded. I am also concerned about how the Supreme Court addressed the questions in the 14th Amendment cases.

First, the bolded - Congress did, and by an overwhelming majority, declare Jan. 6 an insurrection. H.R.3325 - To award four congressio...ted the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
"(2) On January 6, 2021, a mob of insurrectionists forced its
way into the U.S. Capitol building and congressional office
buildings and engaged in acts of vandalism, looting, and
violently attacked Capitol Police officers."

Moreover, several courts have described it as an insurrection, and multiple individuals have been convicted of Seditious Conspiracy. The President has described January 6 an insurrection: "This was an armed insurrection."; JANUARY 06, 2022
Remarks By Presid...y 6th Deadly Assault On The U.S. Capitol.

Second, the Supreme Court has never deemed that Section 3 was NOT self-executing. Several courts have ruled the opposite. Only once has a judge ruled otherwise.

Third, in no other case of which I am aware has any court REQUIRED a Congressional declaration of an insurrection, and indeed, the idea is legally nonsensical. The Insurrection Act allows the President to call out the Militia to put down an insurrection. Is he prohibited from doing so until Congress acts?

Fourth, one of the most maddening areas of questioning by SCOTUS Justices was the intimation that States can't independently address disqualification.Justices skeptical of 14th Amendment case banning Trump from ballot: Key takeaways. That stance is directly contrary to the history and structure of the 14th Amendment.

Go back to mt last post. If SC overturns Colorado (and I believe they will) then we are faced with the dilemma of an insurrectionist (see your comments) taking the oath of office and the 14th amendment prohibition of an insurrectionist being an officeholder. Republicans have already tried to place a resolution declaring Trump is not an insurrectionist, as per your comment, in preparation. At what point does the prohibition initiate? Immediately after the election? After states have certified? After certificates have been counted? Before another insurrection? etc etc

When the SC opens Pandora's Box, we will begin the Age of the Death of Democracy in America. I hear the rattle.

The longer the SCOTUS takes to resolve the 14th Amendment issue and/or agree to take-up the immunity issue, the worse the outcome for Trump.

I disagree.

The SC will pass on the 14th, which can only presage the Constitutional crisis of an insurrectionist attempting to become an officeholder, and this of the courts own making. This may not or will not matter once the election has entered the final phase of counting certificates. MAGA will object and force alternative electors be chosen or failure to return an opinion in which case it goes to the House which will become the arbiter of all elections, including Congressmen. Thus the current House can reject non-loyal Republicans as well as Democrats and maintain control of the House. Once in control they can dictate who becomes President.The political infrastructure is in place. The only think lacking is an election. This can only be good for Trump.

As for immunity, the SC may wait until the fall to take it up, in which case it will become moot. Even if they rule he has no unconditional immunity, he will force states to allow him a free pass. I'm typing about fascism. When in office he can do anything and will have the political inertia to operate as if he were the emperor. For he is above the law.

For those who think it can't happen in America ...abre los ojos!!!!!!

The SCOTUS issued a notice on their website today, SU 03/03/24, the 14A ruling will be released tomorrow MO 03/04/23 10:00 EST.

In a 9-0 decision, the SCOTUS has ruled Trump may remain on the ballot. Without reading the whole decision, I would guess section 5 of the 14th was the main reason the SCOTUS decision. Section 5 gives congress the power, via appropriate legislation to enforce all articles or sections of the 14th. During the civil war the congress passed legislation declaring the south in a state of insurrection. Then followed that up with numerous laws after ratification of the 14th. Congress or any other government agency to include the president, the DOJ, Homeland Security etc. ever declared 1-6 an insurrection. Nor any of the 91 federal indictments has ever charged Trump with insurrection. The bottom line is legally, officially 1-6 wasn’t not an insurrection since congress nor any other agency in the federal government declared it so

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...cannot-kicked-colorado-ballot-rcna132291

This ruling is pretty much along the lines I’ve posted.

Here's how the SCOTUS put it - We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal of- fices, especially the Presidency.

And after ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, States used this authority to disqualify state officers in accordance with state statutes. Such power over governance, however, does not extend to federal officeholders and candidates.

States lack even the lesser powers to issue writs of mandamus against federal officials or to grant habeas cor- pus relief to persons in federal custody.

The text of the Fourteenth Amendment, on its face, does not affirmatively delegate such a power to the States. The terms of the Amendment speak only to enforcement by Congress, which enjoys power to enforce the Amendment through legislation pursuant to Section 5. his can hardly come as a surprise, given that the substantive provisions of the Amendment “embody significant limitations on state authority.

It would be incongruous to read this particular Amendment as granting the States the power—silently no less—to disqualify a candidate for federal office.

Sates have no power . . . to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner con- trol, the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress

Responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States.

Federalism principles embedded in that constitutional structure decide this case. States cannot use their control over the ballot to “undermine the National Government.

To allow Colorado to take a presidential candidate off the ballot under Section 3 would imperil the Framers’ vision of “a Federal Government directly responsible to the people.

The men who drafted and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, however, had witnessed an “insurrection [and] rebellion” to defend slavery. They wanted to ensure that those who had participated in that insurrection, and in possible future insurrections, could not return to prominent roles.

All nine Members of the Court agree with that result. Our colleagues writing separately further agree with many of the reasons this opinion provides for reaching it. See post, Part I (joint opinion of SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and JACKSON, JJ.); see also post, p. 1 (opinion of BARRETT, J.). So far as we can tell, they object only to our taking into ac- count the distinctive way Section 3 works and the fact that Section 5 vests in Congress the power to enforce it. These are not the only reasons the States lack power to enforce this particular constitutional provision with respect to fed- eral offices. But they are important ones, and it is the com- bination of all the reasons set forth in this opinion—not, as some of our colleagues would have it, just one particular ra- tionale—that resolves this case.

Correct, the ruling said that Section 5 gives congress the power, via appropriate legislation to enforce all articles or sections of the 14th.

Here's the ruling in a nutshell:

The Supreme Court has not only held that states cannot enforce the 14th Amendment for Federal offices, but it held that Congress must exclude insurrectionists from office, and points to the predecessor to 18 USC 2383 as means to exclude someone.

The bottom line is this: Taken in tandem with SCOTUS’ punt on Trump’s immunity bid, this seems like an invitation for Jack Smith to supersede Trump with inciting insurrection. After all, SCOTUS has now upheld the DC Circuit opinion that says there’s no double jeopardy problem with trying someone for something on which they were acquitted after impeachment.

Majorities in both the House and the Senate voted in the affirmative that Trump incited an insurrection. Doesn't that count?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolution/24/text

No. That was an impeachment proceeding which Trump was found not guilty. It wasn’t legislation which would have been required such as congress passed during the civil war declaring the south in a state of insurrection signed by the president. Much like congress declaring war. Congress would have had to pass legislation declaring 1-6 an insurrection which it didn’t do. This is what section 5 is all about. Section 5 gave congress the sole power, authority to enforce all articles, sections of the 14th by appropriate legislation. The appropriate legislation in this case would be declaring 1-6 an insurrection which would have to be signed into law by the president.

Congress never did. They never thought of it. The idea of using the 14th was brought forth a couple to three months after 1-6 occurred. Through this whole debate about Trump being barred from holding future office, section 5 was totally ignored. Only section 3 received the publicity. Section 5 was also ignored.

What basically the SCOTUS stated was the states could apply section 3 to state offices only. That for federal offices it was the congress’s duty to pass the appropriate legislation. One must not forget congress did so during the civil war and then followed that up with numerous other laws, legislation after ratification to enforce section 3 of the 14th on the insurrectionist south.

See first post above:

The articles of impeachment were legislation.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolution/24/text

Conviction on the impeachment, which required a 2/3 vote in the affirmative, was only part of the Resolution.

The rest of the issues only required a simple majority.

Trump v. Anderson.
I read it. I hate it. It's wrong.

Don't believe the reporting that it is a "unanimous" opinion, it is not. As the Sotomayor concurrence notes, the majority answered a question not before it (again) to expand its authority and diminish the authority of other courts. It's entirely a pro-Trump, anti-Constitution opinion.

The majority, following its wont, went well beyond the case to pursue its ideological agenda. It precluded federal courts from making factual determinations about disqualification. It essentially overruled, sub silentio, dozens of precedents that established the 14th Amendment as ?self-executing. Without acknowledging it, this is an election case and another nail in the court-built coffin to bury the Voting Rights Act and other anti-discrimination legislation. It is another example of the Court majority cabal of arrogating to itself power to control the country and undercut the other branches of government.

Anyone with a reverence for the Constitution should be very concerned.

One should not be under any illusion that the current Supreme Court majority is interested in "States' Rights". That is a convenient fig leaf when they want to reduce federal authority, as in Dobbs. But here, where a State has express constitutional authority, that is inconvenient. Instead, the conservatives turn the principle on its head, "Section 3 of the Amendment likewise restricts state autonomy, but through different means." This is Chief Justice Roberts' contribution. "We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency."

The Per Curiam Opinion (note, Justice Thomas did not recuse) waxes on about "the Fourteenth Amendment’s rebalancing of federal and state power" and that "Granting the States that authority would invert the Fourteenth Amendment’s rebalancing". Don't expect this encomium to arise in any other context, especially as it is contrary to decisions such as Shelby County, Bruen, and Dobbs.

That should have ended the case, as the concurring Justices opine. But, it didn't. The reason it didn't is because that left the federal courts available to seek enforcement of the Constitution, and that would have disrupted the cabal's plans.

"Shortly after ratification of the Amendment, Congress enacted the Enforcement Act of 1870. That Act authorized federal district attorneys to bring civil actions in federal court to remove anyone holding nonlegislative office—federal or state—in violation of Section 3, and made holding or attempting to hold office in violation of Section 3 a federal crime." [Note: The Court referenced the repeal of the statute, but I cannot find an online reference to the original language of the statute, only a reference to the section repealed.] Thus, the Court reaches the determination, "For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States." This is not the unanimous view. But they go on: "Any congressional legislation enforcing Section 3 must, like the Enforcement Act of 1870 and §2383, reflect “congruence and proportionality” between preventing or remedying that conduct “and the means adopted to that end.” City of Boerne, 521 U. S., at 520." Here, the majority is asserting, in no uncertain terms, the Court's authority to limit Congress' authority to enforce the disqualification clause.
That the supposedly "unanimous" decision is clearly not, there is a curious paragraph at the end of the Per Curiam Opinion: "All nine Members of the Court agree with that result. Our colleagues writing separately further agree with many of the reasons this opinion provides for reaching it. See post, Part I (joint opinion of SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and JACKSON, JJ.); see also post, p. 1 (opinion of BARRETT, J.). So far as we can tell, they object only to our taking into account the distinctive way Section 3 works and the fact that Section 5 vests in Congress the power to enforce it. These are not the only reasons the States lack power to enforce this particular constitutional provision with respect to federal offices. But they are important ones, and it is the combination of all the reasons set forth in this opinion—not, as some of our colleagues would have it, just one particular rationale—that resolves this case. In our view, each of these reasons is necessary to provide a complete explanation for the judgment the Court unanimously reaches."

What were those objections? Justice Barrett was succinct: "I agree that States lack the power to enforce Section 3 against Presidential candidates. That principle is sufficient to resolve this case, and I would decide no more than that."

Justice Sotomayor is more specific: "If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is necessary not to decide more.” Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U. S. 215, 348 (2022) (ROBERTS, C. J., concurring in judgment).
....
Today, the Court departs from that vital principle, deciding not just this case, but challenges that might arise in the future.
....
five Justices go on. They decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy. Ante, at 13. Although only an individual State’s action is at issue here, the majority opines on which federal actors can enforce Section 3, and how they must do so. (Emphasis mine) The majority announces that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement. We cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily, and we therefore concur only in the judgment."

Here I am completely in accord with Justice Sotomayor's concurrence: "the Court continues on to resolve questions not before us." Sound familiar?

1) "In a case involving no federal action whatsoever, the Court opines on how federal enforcement of Section 3 must proceed."
2) "Congress, the majority says, must enact legislation under Section 5 prescribing the procedures to “‘“ascertain[] what particular individuals”’” should be disqualified."
3) "These musings are as inadequately supported as they are gratuitous."

Substantively, she is even more acidic: "To start, nothing in Section 3’s text supports the majority’s view of how federal disqualification efforts must operate. Section 3 states simply that “[n]o person shall” hold certain positions and offices if they are oath breaking insurrectionists. Amdt. 14. Nothing in that unequivocal bar suggests that implementing legislation enacted under Section 5 is “critical” (or, for that matter, what that word means in this context). Ante, at 5. In fact, the text cuts the opposite way. Section 3 provides that when an oath breaking insurrectionist is disqualified, “Congress may by a vote of two thirds of each House, remove such disability.” It is hard to understand why the Constitution would require a congressional supermajority to remove a disqualification if a simple majority could nullify Section 3’s operation by repealing or declining to pass implementing legislation." Check.

"Similarly, nothing else in the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment supports the majority’s view. Section 5 gives Congress the “power to enforce [the Amendment] by appropriate legislation.” Remedial legislation of any kind, however, is not required. All the Reconstruction Amendments (including the due process and equal protection guarantees and prohibition of slavery) “are self-executing,” meaning that they do not depend on legislation. City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. 507, 524 (1997); see Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 3, 20 (1883). Similarly, other constitutional rules of disqualification, like the two-term limit on the Presidency, do not require implementing legislation." and, Mate.

"Ultimately, under the guise of providing a more “complete explanation for the judgment,” ante, at 13, the majority resolves many unsettled questions about Section 3. It forecloses judicial enforcement of that provision, such as might occur when a party is prosecuted by an insurrectionist and raises a defense on that score. The majority further holds that any legislation to enforce this provision must prescribe certain procedures “‘tailor[ed]’” to Section 3, ante, at 10, ruling out enforcement under general federal statutes requiring the government to comply with the law. By resolving these and other questions, the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office.

The implications are horrendous.

Trump has already been convicted as an insurrectionsist in January 2021 by the House. The Senate simply chose not to remove him.

Only a 2/3rds vote from Congress could remove that disqualification TODAY.

#TrumpIsDisqualified

No Rick. What the house did was the equivalent to an indictment. The house played the role of a grand jury in issuing an indictment. What the house did was not a conviction. A conviction comes when the jury, after a trial, finds the defendant guilty. The trial took place in the senate in this case. The senators were the jury, they pronounced the defendant. Trump, not guilty.

It's clear the courts won't save democracy. WE have to do it ourselves. We have got to roll up our sleeves ourselves and get to work - there is a lot of work to be done.

Correct. I misstated what happened. As you wrote, the House did an equivalent of an indictment. Under 14.3, a conviction IS NOT needed - only the behavior is.

Therefore, today's House MUST remove Trump from the ballot as stated in todays SCOTUS order for being an insurrectionist.

That's not going to happen Rick. The house has already passed that bill that Trump was not an insurrectionist. They were ahead of the debate on that!

Then, Mike Johnson needs to be removed as Speaker of the House and someone who'll defend democracy needs to be put in.

The Speaker rules that removed McCarthy are still in place, all it will take is one person to call a vote to remove Johnson.

Jamie Raskin (D-MD08) has accepted the Supreme Court's decision to have Congress decide and is reviving a bill he set forth in 2021 to deal with insurrectionists like Trump.

If House Speaker Johnson won't bring this bill to a vote, then Mike Johnson needs to be removed as Speaker.

Point of order: Actually, both the House and Senate passed a resolution that declared Jan 6 an insurrection, when they granted Congressional Gold Medals to Capitol Police Officers.

(BTW, I didn't think Gaetz's resolution was passed. Was it?) I checked. It has gone nowhere. HR 1001

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]

I wonder, in passing, what would happen if the 14th was used again AFTER trump gets convicted in one or more criminal cases. Then, I think, the 14th will stick. I think that is one of the reasons Trump fights so hard against any and all cases.

Just a thought..............

My thinking is since none of the 91 federal indictments charged Trump with insurrection that leaves the 14th high and dry. Even if convicted on all 91 federal charges, Trump still wouldn’t have been convicted of insurrection. I’m also sure if convicted on some of the 91 federal charges and sent to prison, that ends his political career. The MAGA faction of the Republican Party will try to carry on, but I think over time it will fade out as the only thing MAGA stands for is Trump. No political ideology, no political philosophy, no legislative agenda, just the worship of one man. Although going to prison may make Trump a martyr in their eyes allowing the MAGA faction to carry on much longer than one would want or desire. Time will tell.

The SCOTUS ruled that only Congress can determine if someone committed insurrection. Both the House and a bipartisan Senate in 2021 found that Trump committed insurrection. All that is needed now is for Congress to invoke this fact. The current R-house won't do it. With only a one margin advantage, the Rs keeping the House looks in peril. Once the Dems take the House majority, all they need to do is invoke the 2020 vote.

As I have state ad nauseam, a conviction is not needed, all that is need is for the behavior to be cited. The SCOTUS has given Congress that duty. All this current Congress has to do now is act.

Wow, I just figured out that I had no idea what the 14th said. For some unknown reason I somehow thought that any felony conviction, by a presidential candidate wrecked his chance. Having read the 14th there didn't seem to be anything in support of such a belief.

Just goes to show something I guess............