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

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.