Donald Trump: Classic or Dud?

More weight

hence why social media and a couple posters here implying that This Doesn't Matter annoys me.

heavily otm

this amendment has already been used for lower offices to keep people who participated in January 6th from running, some of whom were not yet convicted either.

Has it been used for people who were not physically present at the Capitol?

The insurrection language was put in the Constitution after an actual war. Trump's role is the insurrection has been clearly defined and Jack Smith is not even bothering to try to convict him of insurrection because it's difficult to prove. It may be self evident to us, but not to a hundred million people or so.

has not been clearly defined

Like, yeah, you didn't need a trial to decided if someone was a Confederate because there were records identifying them

Also, establishment Republican types would love to have Trump yanked out of the election. They wouldn't have to deal with him anymore and they could still bitch about it.

Like, yeah, you didn't need a trial to decided if someone was a Confederate because there were records identifying them

― Beyond Goo and Evol (President Keyes), Thursday, December 21, 2023 2:13 PM bookmarkflaglink

that's goalpost moving. You require a criminal conviction for Trump for the invocation of the Insurrection Clause to be valid, yet it's fine for Confederates to be barred simply for being Confederates....because being a Confederate is inherently insurrection? Ok, but not in the eyes of the law as it pertains to that person. Even when you commit a crime out in the open that's witnessed by thousands of people, criminally speaking you are innocent until proven guilty (or until you plead guilty). Not to mention, similar to McCarthyism, civilians could easily have been misidentified as aiding the Confederacy.

In fact, J.D. Watkins, a District Attorney, was disqualified from office for the nebulous reason of "engaged in the rebellion", but no specific details as to what he actually did ever emerged. Most noteworthy is during that case, the Louisiana Supreme Court established in their ruling that Section 3 of Amendment 14 ("Insurrection Clause") is not a criminal punishment, merely a requirement for office, and thus state courts can enforce it.

A.F. Gregory, a Postmaster, was removed from his post by the Postmaster General, and no actual rationale was given, just that it fell under the Insurrection Clause.

John H. Christy was removed from his post for offering aid and encouragement to Confederates, but it was never established what he specifically did.

None of these three were ever charged or convicted with a crime. All of their removals stuck and only one court (Louisiana Supreme Court) even reviewed the case and upheld the removal.

No criminal conviction is required because this is a prerequisite for office and not a criminal punishment - so just like "being a member of or aiding the Confederacy" was enough to disqualify 6 individuals in the 19th century, a state court ruling Trump's actions amount to insurrection is sufficient as well. In the history of its usage, the expectation always seems to be that either by action (refusing to seat a candidate that won an election) or filing of a lawsuit, someone seeks to remove a candidate from office on Insurrection grounds, and that state courts are eligible to rule on the merits.

None of the legal experts I've read in the last three days who have brought up the significant legal challenges with this ruling have mentioned the lack of a criminal conviction. almost all of them have pointed to whether this clause applies to the Presidency or not.

yet it's fine for Confederates to be barred simply for being Confederates....because being a Confederate is inherently insurrection?

There was a literal war against the United States. These are two quite different things.

God every time I listen to a Dead C record it's like I can't listen to anything else for several days

xp I'm not paying the slightest attention to a poster who thinks that "COVID is over", you've lost what little legitimacy you had left on this board, just go away

I'll say it more simply here - in 1869, the precedent was set by the Louisiana Supreme Court that the Insurrection Clause can be enforced via civil lawsuits at the state court level, because it is not a criminal matter. It's a civil lawsuit. If I'm sued in civil court for assault, I don't beat the charges by merely yelling "well I was never arrested or convicted so they have no case" - I mean, I can try that, but it's not a winning strategy. Civil court has a much lower burden of proof required. and state Supreme Courts can adjudicate civil matters like these.

SCOTUS will of course reverse this but it will have nothing to do with anything based in legal rationale and everything to do with "lol fuck u libs" and we know this because people like Alito, Kavanaugh, and Thomas outright say things that amount to that, on the record.

I still think the easiest thing is for them to default back to the trial court's judgment that the section doesn't apply to the president. That way they're not imposing their view, they're upholding a lower court ruling and revering the state supreme court. Sure it leaves open the possibility of an insurrectionist getting elected president, but on balance that's not likely to happen very often — just next year, is all.

I just wish his decades of terrible eating and no exercise would finally catch up with him, but of fucking course not.

I think the only legitimate question here is whether the President is an "officer of the United States"

The phrase is not defined in the text.

If you are required to take an oath of office to "protect preserve and defend the Consitution of the United States" then you are an officer of the US government. It was phrased that way to ensure that all the former US Army officers who fought for the confederacy would be included, along with all the former US congressmen or Cabinet officers in the CSA government. It probably swept in a lot of postmasters, too.

That still doesn't answer the question whether it applies to POTUS.

I'd say the chances the Supreme Court says it does are slim to none, and slim left town.

hold on, Thaddeus Stevens is booked on Rachel Maddow's show tonight.

btw I haven't watched him in ages but Chris Hayes tried answering these questions last night:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTlPd0yuH1c

The 1869 Louisiana precedent was likely not challenged because the court was using the clause as it was intended, against people who had participated in a war against America. It is being challenged 150 years later because it's being used in a case about whether a sitting President incited a mob, or didn't do enough to calm the mob down.

That still doesn't answer the question whether it applies to POTUS.

He stood up on a podium in front of "the largest crowd ever for an Inauguration" and took the Oath of Office. Only the most tortured rationalizing could somehow deny that simple fact. So, it's right up Alito's alley.

I think the only legitimate question here is whether the President is an "officer of the United States"

I just heard some Harvard professor on the radio, and he said that the Constitution uses that term 25 times in describing duties of the President

Aimless undoubtedly otm.

I mean, he didn't just incite a mob: he attempted a coup.

I feel like I'm on a merry-go-round here.

The only requirement for disqualification, once again, is having "participated in insurrection or rebellion against the United States". Not "having fought or participated in a civil war", not "having been convicted in criminal court of these offenses". It has already been used successfully to oust a city commissioner within the last two years, for a level of participation far below what Trump did (this was for someone who merely showed up to it).

You're also getting stuck on "well the Civil War was a war against America, so of course we don't need a trial, those soldiers wore uniforms" - yeah, no shit, but humoring you for a moment that a criminal conviction is required to disqualify Trump (which it is not), the same would hold true for being a part of the Confederacy. You can't have it both ways. The relative 'obviousness' of whether someone was a Confederate soldier or not doesn't matter - if you believe a conviction in court is required, then these Confederate sympathizers would similarly need to convicted first. Just like how in criminal court you don't forfeit the right to a trial because 1,000 people saw you do it and someone recorded you doing it. There's not a rotating set of standards based on context, here. You either believe a conviction is required or you don't believe it, and what I'm saying is only 1 of the 6 people disqualified in the 19th century was charged and convicted of anything. 3 of them, it's unclear what their role with the Confederacy even was.

Because, as I've already said, it's not as cut and dried as you keep implying. You have soldiers and army officers in the Confederacy, sure, but three of the people I listed who were removed in the 19th century as per this Amendment were not soldiers or officers of the Confederacy, and what they were accused of doing to aid the Confederacy was vague - it could have been as simple as, like, going to a meeting where Confederates were gathered, or writing something that seemed supportive of them. or donating money.

These extra caveats you keep insisting are requirements are your own artistic license.

xxxxposts

like let's not pretend there's going to be any legal pretext for the dismissal. Clarence Thomas and Alito are, to differing degrees, Originalists, and if they were going to rule in good faith, would not take the context of the amendment Section 3 being a byproduct of Civil War times, and don't view the Constitution as a living breathing thing.

except when the Originalist reading would warrant them ruling in a way they personally don't like.

Lucky for Trump every sitting justice on the SCOTUS was a lawyer. When it comes right down to it, they aren't even bound by precedent. All they have to do is get 5 votes and write some kind of fine sounding gobbledygook to back it up. The 5 votes don't even have to sign on to the same gobbledygook. That's why we love them so much.

Thomas and Alito are lickspittle trash so they'll probably overturn, but I really can't see Gorsuch or Kennedy doing it. Kavanaugh and Barrett I can't predict. But again, neither of them have had Trump's back judicially speaking so far.

It's splitting hairs because I'm not arguing anything except my understanding of what is technically true in this regard BUT: "The only requirement for disqualification, once again, is having 'participated in insurrection or rebellion against the United States'. [...] not 'having been convicted in criminal court of these offenses'." What's the difference? His "participation" is not formally fact UNTIL a conviction, no? He has to be found guilty before things can be set in motion contingent on his guilt.

DISCLAIMER I have no larger point at all I am just really fixated on this one single thing... all I'll say is that unless I'm way off here I can see them dismissing on that basis.

Ok, this is my artistic view: the Civil War and Jan. 6 are extremely different events-- the first was an actual war against the United States and the second is mob violence. Trump's level of culpability is in dispute, and it does not strike me as clear that the people who put the clause in the Constitution would have considered a sitting President giving a speech that made people storm the Capitol would count as an insurrection or a rebellion. So you are probably correct that the CO court had the authority to decide these matters against Trump, but to me the decision would be more convincing if some entity other than the CO court had decided Trump's guilt in the matter. If it's enough for you, that's cool, but I would rather see a clearer process put in place.

He did far more to overthrow the government than just give a speech.

John Schneider Calls For Joe Biden to Be Executed

https://www.newsweek.com/john-schneider-joe-biden-executed-1854401

yea idk how much of those 1/6 hearings you listened to but there was def a lot more to it than that

I know but insurrection is defined by violence.

Leaning on people to do illegal stuff is illegal, which is why Trump should be in jail.

just to be clear does anyone here actually believe Trump shouldn't be removed from the ballot because of this or is it just Devil's advocate because Trump always gets the benefit the doubt?

He shouldn't be removed from the ballot until he's convicted.

xp I think that, in this case (unlike so much of the litigation he brings or causes), there is at least a colorable legal argument here that he should not be removed.

That said, he shouldn't be on the ballot anywhere. He should be cast into the outer darkness, where there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

https://i0.wp.com/www.kindertrauma.com/images/movies/blackhole1.jpg

Evan, the framers did not include a conviction requirement because they probably considered "insurrection" self-evident. after all, the Civil War was the impetus for its creation. They didn't anticipate 100+ years later that there would be a political party that would openly try to steal elections and deny water is wet.

But how the provision has worked in the past when invoked is that interested parties have used Insurrection as a precondition for removing someone from their elected position or denying them the ability to run again. and the person accused has either quietly accepted the decision, or challenged it in court. that's how civil court generally works in legal disputes - if one party believes they've been wronged by another who they feel are doing so due to a misapplication of law, they sue, and the courts clear it up.

when a law is unclearly written, as this one is, courts typically intervene and their rulings are used as precedents for later rulings.

This is actually how this law has typically been applied. An elected official has been told they were removed from their position and could not run again due to being involved in insurrection or rebellion. They either quietly accept the decision, or, as is most cases, sue in court to try and reverse the decision (and usually lose).

Two separate individuals were removed from their elected positions in North Carolina in 1869 and sued to get their jobs (and ability to run in the future) back, and lost - one was Kenneth Worthy (a county sheriff), the other William Tate (a state solicitor). Worthy merely held public office in a state that was part of the Confederacy in the Civil War, whereas Tate was an actual officer of the Confederate army. Both sued, and it eventually got to the North Carolina Supreme Court who determined their dismissals were valid.

Zebulon Vance, on the other hand, was appointed to the US Senate in 1872, but Congress refused to seat him due to his being a Confederate officer and serving as Governor in a confederate state, citing 14th amendment. He did not challenge the ruling in court, instead petitioning Congress to seat him, and after two years, he gave up.

The only person prior to 2021 to actually be convicted prior to dismissal under the 14th amendment was Victor Berger, a Socialist who was elected to the House of Representatives in 2019 and Congress refused to seat him because he was arrested and later convicted under the Espionage Act for merely being a Socialist and writing in opposition to World War 1. This conviction was overturned by SCOTUS in 2021, and Congress no longer refused to seat him after that occurred. This was an example of a time the clause was horribly misused.

What should have happened was a Senate conviction on the second impeachment that included a bar on his ever holding federal office again. But, the temporary backbone some GOP Senators found in the aftermath of the riot had long evaporated by the time the vote came around.

I'm going to guess that conviction was in 1919?

John Schneider Calls For Joe Biden to Be Executed

Hmm maybe the Confederate flag on the car named General Lee should have been a tip-off here.

I know but insurrection is defined by violence.

― Beyond Goo and Evol (President Keyes), Thursday, December 21, 2023 4:53 PM bookmarkflaglink

from the US criminal code, here is the actual law regarding insurrection or rebellion.

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

The actor themselves need not be the violent one, only need to incite those that are or assist them. He demanded the removal of metal detectors because he knew many of his supporters are armed. he gave a speech and encouraged them to march. pretty damn cut and dry.

The speech was also part of a longer-range plan to disrupt the electoral count and to overturn the election.

just to be clear does anyone here actually believe Trump shouldn't be removed from the ballot because of this

I don't think anyone should be barred from running/removed from ballots for any reason. I don't see that as an effective measure to stop anything/anyone bad - if a plurality or majority of an electorate wish to elect John Wayne Gacy, preventing them from voting for John Wayne Gacy isn't going to resolve the underlying issue - and runs parallel to my objection to stripping felons of the vote, etc..

Hmm maybe the Confederate flag on the car named General Lee should have been a tip-off here.

I see what you're going for here, but actors are meat puppets; they do what they're told.

He also had a lamentable career as a country singer.

preventing them from voting for John Wayne Gacy isn't going to resolve the underlying issue

No, but it will prevent John Wayne Gacy from actually holding elected office.

also going to go out on a limb and assume the Founding Fathers didn't require conviction simply to prevent situations like these. in Civil War times, non-repentant Confederates still had a degree of popularity and were finding themselves easily elected to office, where you couldn't assume the stink of Confederacy would be sufficient to keep them out of office, much like we sadly can't assume a President who tried to commit a coup will be unpopular enough to lose an election.

he and his lawyers have been deliberately trying to slow-walk the trial so that the election ends before it's concluded and therefore avoid being prosecuted on behalf of being a sitting President. his lawyers have done this with several of his cases, judge shopping so they could get Judge Cannon. so idk maybe focus on that rather than concern trolling about a weird, incongruous reading of an obscure passage in the 14th Amendment.

it's not even a 'two wrongs make a right' scenario because one individual has violated the law many, many times, and the other side is actually interpreting the appropriate 14th amendment passage consistent with how it's been historically used, it's just never been used for this high an office.