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

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: