Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Congress has the power to block Trump from taking office, but lawmakers must act now
Hat tip, {redacted}
The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill
Congress has the power to block Trump from taking office, but lawmakers must act now
by Evan A. Davis and David M. Schulte, opinion contributors - 12/26/24 8:00 AM ET
The Constitution provides that an oath-breaking insurrectionist is ineligible to be president. This is the plain wording of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. “No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath … 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.” This disability can be removed by a two-thirds vote in each House.
Disqualification is based on insurrection against the Constitution and not the government. The evidence of Donald Trump’s engaging in such insurrection is overwhelming. The matter has been decided in three separate forums, two of which were fully contested with the active participation of Trump’s counsel.
The first fully contested proceeding was Trump’s second impeachment trial. On Jan. 13, 2021, then-President Trump was impeached for “incitement of insurrection.” At the trial in the Senate, seven Republicans joined all Democrats to provide a majority for conviction but failed to reach the two-thirds vote required for removal from office. Inciting insurrection encompasses “engaging in insurrection” against the Constitution “or giving aid and comfort to the enemies thereof,” the grounds for disqualification specified in Section 3.
The second contested proceeding was the Colorado five-day judicial due process hearing where the court “found by clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection as those terms are used in Section Three.” The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed. On further appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the court held that states lack power to disqualify candidates for federal office and that federal legislation was required to enforce Section 3. The court did not address the finding that Trump had engaged in insurrection.
{snip}
Evan Davis was editor in chief of the Columbia Law Review and David Schulte was editor in chief of the Yale Law Journal. Both clerked for Justice Potter Stewart. Davis is a New York lawyer who served as president of the New York City Bar, and Schulte is a Chicago investment banker.
The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill
Congress has the power to block Trump from taking office, but lawmakers must act now
by Evan A. Davis and David M. Schulte, opinion contributors - 12/26/24 8:00 AM ET
The Constitution provides that an oath-breaking insurrectionist is ineligible to be president. This is the plain wording of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. “No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath … 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.” This disability can be removed by a two-thirds vote in each House.
Disqualification is based on insurrection against the Constitution and not the government. The evidence of Donald Trump’s engaging in such insurrection is overwhelming. The matter has been decided in three separate forums, two of which were fully contested with the active participation of Trump’s counsel.
The first fully contested proceeding was Trump’s second impeachment trial. On Jan. 13, 2021, then-President Trump was impeached for “incitement of insurrection.” At the trial in the Senate, seven Republicans joined all Democrats to provide a majority for conviction but failed to reach the two-thirds vote required for removal from office. Inciting insurrection encompasses “engaging in insurrection” against the Constitution “or giving aid and comfort to the enemies thereof,” the grounds for disqualification specified in Section 3.
The second contested proceeding was the Colorado five-day judicial due process hearing where the court “found by clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection as those terms are used in Section Three.” The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed. On further appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the court held that states lack power to disqualify candidates for federal office and that federal legislation was required to enforce Section 3. The court did not address the finding that Trump had engaged in insurrection.
{snip}
Evan Davis was editor in chief of the Columbia Law Review and David Schulte was editor in chief of the Yale Law Journal. Both clerked for Justice Potter Stewart. Davis is a New York lawyer who served as president of the New York City Bar, and Schulte is a Chicago investment banker.
21 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Congress has the power to block Trump from taking office, but lawmakers must act now (Original Post)
mahatmakanejeeves
Dec 26
OP
No chance. The POS won the election. Unfortunately, democracy doesn't guarantee the best candidates will win.
Silent Type
Dec 26
#2
According to the 14th amendment, it requires a ⅔'s majority of both houses to allow him to serve
OKIsItJustMe
Dec 28
#7
How else would one determine if a person is disqualified from holding office under the 14th?
Fiendish Thingy
Dec 28
#14
Disqualified: The case for Donald Trump's disqualification under the 14th Amendment
OKIsItJustMe
Dec 28
#13
In January of 2021 a bipartisan majority of the House impeached Donald Trump on the grounds that he led an insurrection
OKIsItJustMe
Dec 29
#19
The opinion of one person on the internet does not equate to the Rule Of Law.
Fiendish Thingy
Dec 29
#21
displacedvermoter
(3,395 posts)1. This is a waste of keystrokes
as it will never happen and the authors know it as well as I do.
PSPS
(14,226 posts)3. Not for The Hill. It got them click$$$!!111!!1!!!1
OKIsItJustMe
(21,031 posts)9. Can we simply ignore "the supreme Law of the Land" now?
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-6/#article-6-clause-2
The authors of the US Constitution provided processes by which it could be amended if we chose to do so. They didn’t make it particularly easy to do, for a reason.
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-5/
Now, apparently, by a simple election, we can choose to simply ignore the US Constitution. (That’s a lot easier.)
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall bethe supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artVI-C2-2-2/ALDE_00013397/
The authors of the US Constitution provided processes by which it could be amended if we chose to do so. They didn’t make it particularly easy to do, for a reason.
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-5/
Article V Article V Explained
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Now, apparently, by a simple election, we can choose to simply ignore the US Constitution. (That’s a lot easier.)
Silent Type
(7,622 posts)2. No chance. The POS won the election. Unfortunately, democracy doesn't guarantee the best candidates will win.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,031 posts)8. Hypothetically, what's to prevent him from being elected a third time?
I mean it’s only a Constitutional Amendment. Right? Apparently, if the majority votes for someone, regardless of what the US Constitution says, we have to let them serve.
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-22/
Twenty-Second Amendment Twenty-Second Amendment Explained
Section 1
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.
Section 2
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.
Section 1
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.
Section 2
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.
If the will of the electorate can override the US Constitution, can we elect Melania Trump (not a "natural born Citizen” ) or Baron Trump (not thirty five.)
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/#article-2-section-1-clause-5
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C5-1/ALDE_00013692/
If he were dead, Arnold Schwarzenegger would be rolling in his grave.
https://variety.com/2023/film/news/arnold-schwarzenegger-president-2024-says-win-1235646563/
Jun 16, 2023 6:34am PT
Arnold Schwarzenegger Says He’d ‘Absolutely’ Run for President in 2024 if He Could: ‘It’s a No Brainer…I See So Clearly How I Could Win’
By Zack Sharf
…
Arnold Schwarzenegger Says He’d ‘Absolutely’ Run for President in 2024 if He Could: ‘It’s a No Brainer…I See So Clearly How I Could Win’
By Zack Sharf
…
Fiendish Thingy
(19,023 posts)16. You've answered your own question
Litigation would be brought to challenge a third run, and would be upheld, because any judge, even Aileen Cannon, can count to two.
There is no pending litigation claiming Trump is disqualified, not by any of your constitutional scholars, not by Marc Elias, nobody.
Ask yourself: Why Not?
OKIsItJustMe
(21,031 posts)17. Here's the scenario I see
January 6th, before counting the votes of the electors, votes are called for in both the House and Senate, “Do we allow this man to serve, contrary to the 14th amendment?” If he fails to get the required ⅔’s majority, in either house, votes cast for Trump will not be counted, since he is disqualified, leaving it to the House to choose among the other candidates receiving the most votes.
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-12/
… the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;–The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. …
This is why to wait. The requirement of an immediate vote leaves no time for Trump’s allies to fight back.
(J.D. Vance will be elected Vice President.)
Fiendish Thingy
(19,023 posts)20. You're describing a "contingent election", which doesn't apply here.
Because the electoral count act prescribes how a contingent election is triggered, how objections are raised and sustained, and how electoral votes can be rejected.
None of that applies here or will happen in the real world. No objections will be sustained, because Dems don’t have the votes.
Intractable
(727 posts)4. It's guaranteed bloody civil war if we try to remove him.
Have faith that he will fuck some things up, but will be displaced from power by the 2026 elections.
He will fade. What comes next, I'm not so sure.
Fiendish Thingy
(19,023 posts)5. Not going to happen
Republicans control congress, and a resolution passed by a majority of both houses would be required to disqualify Trump, and that would still be challenged in court, since Trump was never charged nor convicted of the crime of insurrection.
There is no legal or constitutional Deus ex Machina that will rescue the country from a second Trump term.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,031 posts)7. According to the 14th amendment, it requires a ⅔'s majority of both houses to allow him to serve
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/#amendment-14-section-3
…
Section 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or 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, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, 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.
…
Section 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or 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, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, 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.
…
Fiendish Thingy
(19,023 posts)10. His disqualification has not been adjudicated
You can’t remove a disqualification that hasn’t been established, either by Congress or a court of law.
A bunch of people on the internet saying “it’s obvious” doesn’t disqualify Trump, just as a bunch of people on the internet saying “show me the long form birth certificate “ didn’t disqualify Obama.
It’s not going to happen.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,031 posts)11. Why does it need to be adjudicated?
https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/analysis/legal-experts-across-the-ideological-spectrum-agree-the-14th-amendment-disqualifies-trump-from-holding-office/
August 25, 2023
Legal experts across the ideological spectrum agree: The 14th Amendment disqualifies Trump from holding office
Experts and academics across the ideological spectrum believe that Donald Trump is disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Leading conservative and progressive figures are in agreement that the Constitution bars Trump from assuming office again and must be enforced.
Earlier this month, prominent conservative law professors and Federalist Society members William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen authored a 126-page paper exploring the enforceability of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in the case of January 6th.
They explained that as a self-executing provision, Section 3 doesn’t require any action by Congress—and it doesn’t require a criminal conviction.
Legal experts across the ideological spectrum agree: The 14th Amendment disqualifies Trump from holding office
Experts and academics across the ideological spectrum believe that Donald Trump is disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Leading conservative and progressive figures are in agreement that the Constitution bars Trump from assuming office again and must be enforced.
Earlier this month, prominent conservative law professors and Federalist Society members William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen authored a 126-page paper exploring the enforceability of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in the case of January 6th.
Overall, it seems to us to be quite clear that the specific series of events leading up to and culminating in the January 6, 2021 attack qualifies as an insurrection within the meaning of Section Three: “concerted, forcible resistance to the authority of government to execute the laws in at least some significant respect.”
They explained that as a self-executing provision, Section 3 doesn’t require any action by Congress—and it doesn’t require a criminal conviction.
No action is necessary to “activate” Section Three as a prerequisite to its application as law by bodies or persons whose responsibilities call for its application. The Constitution’s qualification and disqualification rules exist and possess legal force in their own right, which is what makes them applicable and enforceable by a variety of officials in a variety of contexts.…
Fiendish Thingy
(19,023 posts)14. How else would one determine if a person is disqualified from holding office under the 14th?
We are a nation of laws, not a nation of coin tosses, or whoever yells the loudest.
The enforcement mechanism for section 3 of the 14th amendment, as decided by the courts, at least for federal offices, is either:
1) a joint resolution passed by congress (not going to happen ), or
2) a conviction for insurrection, the penalty for which, as determined by congress, is disqualification from holding federal office.
In the past, the other enforcement mechanism was being a member of the confederate army or government. That was the only “automatic” disqualifying event under the 14th amendment, and it still had to be proven, so the wrong John Smith didn’t get disqualified.
For state offices, the enforcement mechanism, at least the last time it was used, is a ruling by a judge in a state court after evidence has been presented, with the opportunity for cross examination. In other words, due process.
So, you can cut and paste the constitution all you want, but in the end, Trump will be inaugurated on January 20.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,031 posts)13. Disqualified: The case for Donald Trump's disqualification under the 14th Amendment
https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/20230714_CREW_Report_Final.pdf
From the Wayback Machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20211109152320/https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Jacob%20Chansley%20Detention%20Memo.pdf
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1514906/download
https://web.archive.org/web/20241228153729/https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/four-oath-keepers-found-guilty-seditious-conspiracy-related-us-capitol-breach
…
January 6th was an “insurrection” against the Constitution
Ample evidence and authoritative sources establish that the January 6th attack on the Capitol and surrounding events constituted an “insurrection” against the Constitution of the United States.
Case law from the Civil War era recognized that the “existence of the rebellion [was] a matter of public notoriety,” supported by “public documents” such as “proclamations of the president” and “acts of congress.”⁶⁹ Similarly, the existence of the January 6th insurrection is a “matter of public notoriety” supported by bipartisan acts of Congress, congressional reports, presidential statements, judicial decisions, and other “public documents.”
All three branches of the federal government have referred to the January 6th attack as an insurrection. Just days after the attack, a bipartisan majority of the House of Representatives voted to impeach Trump for “incitement of insurrection.”⁷⁰ And after a trial in the Senate, a bipartisan majority of senators found Trump “guilty” of the same, though it fell short of the two-thirds supermajority threshold for conviction.⁷¹ Congress has also passed bipartisan bills honoring law enforcement officers who defended the Capitol that refer to the January 6th attackers as “insurrectionists.”⁷²
President Biden – the current Chief Executive of the United States – has referred repeatedly to January 6th as an insurrection.⁷³ The Department of Justice (DOJ) under Trump’s administration characterized January 6th as an “insurrection” in court filings.⁷⁴ Since then, the DOJ has also brought charges and secured convictions of key players in the attack for “seditious conspiracy,” a charge that closely tracks the definition of insurrection.⁷⁵ President Trump’s own impeachment lawyers stated that “everyone agrees” that there was “‘a violent insurrection of the Capitol’ on January 6th” and referred to the attackers as “insurrectionists.”⁷⁶
68 Barrett, 63 N.C. at 204.
69 United States v. Greathouse, 26 F. Cas. 18, 22 (C.C.N.D. Cal. 1863). This report is not intended to provide a complete legal analysis on the meaning of the term “insurrection.”
70 See H.R. Res. 24, 117th Cong. (2021) (impeaching Donald Trump for “incitement of insurrection”).
71 Barbara Sprunt, 7 GOP Senators Voted to Convict Trump. Only 1 Faces Voters Next Year, NPR (Feb. 15, 2021), https://www.npr.org/sections/trump-impeachment-trial-live-updates/2021/02/15/967878039/7-gop-senators-voted-to-convict-trump-only-1-faces-voters-next-year.
72 See Act of Aug. 5, 2021, Pub. L. No. 117-32 (2021); S. Con. Res. 14, 117th Cong. (2021); S. 35, 117th Cong. (2021).
73 See, e.g., President Joe Biden, Statement By President Joe Biden On the Six-month Anniversary of the January 6th Insurrection On the Capitol (July 6, 2021), https://perma.cc/VS89-CC3B; Letter from Dana A. Remus, Counsel to the President, to David Ferriero, Archivist of the United States (Oct. 8, 2021), https://perma.cc/SND5-58EX; President Joe Biden, Remarks by President Biden at Signing of H.R. 3325, Awarding Congressional Gold Medals To Those Who Protected the U.S. Capitol On January 6, 2021 WL 3418358; President Joe Biden, Remarks By President Biden On Protecting the Sacred, Constitutional Right To Vote, 2021 WL 2935591.
74 United States v. Chansley, No. 21-cr-00003, ECF No. 5 (D. Ariz. filed Jan. 14, 2021), https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Jacob%20Chansley%20Detention%20Memo.pdf.
75 U.S. v. Rhodes, et al., 1:22-cr-00015-APM, Superseding Indictment at 14-32 (D.D.C. June 22, 2022), https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1514906/download; see also Four Oath Keepers Found Guilty of Seditious Conspiracy Related to U.S. Capitol Breach, Dep’t of Just. (Jan. 23, 2023), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/four-oath-keepers-found-guilty-seditious-conspiracy-related-us-capitol-breach; Jury Convicts Four Leaders of the Proud Boys of Seditious Conspiracy Related to U.S. Capitol Breach, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Dist. of Columbia (May 4, 2023), https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/jury-convicts-four-leaders-proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy-related-us-capitol-breach.
…
January 6th was an “insurrection” against the Constitution
Ample evidence and authoritative sources establish that the January 6th attack on the Capitol and surrounding events constituted an “insurrection” against the Constitution of the United States.
Case law from the Civil War era recognized that the “existence of the rebellion [was] a matter of public notoriety,” supported by “public documents” such as “proclamations of the president” and “acts of congress.”⁶⁹ Similarly, the existence of the January 6th insurrection is a “matter of public notoriety” supported by bipartisan acts of Congress, congressional reports, presidential statements, judicial decisions, and other “public documents.”
All three branches of the federal government have referred to the January 6th attack as an insurrection. Just days after the attack, a bipartisan majority of the House of Representatives voted to impeach Trump for “incitement of insurrection.”⁷⁰ And after a trial in the Senate, a bipartisan majority of senators found Trump “guilty” of the same, though it fell short of the two-thirds supermajority threshold for conviction.⁷¹ Congress has also passed bipartisan bills honoring law enforcement officers who defended the Capitol that refer to the January 6th attackers as “insurrectionists.”⁷²
President Biden – the current Chief Executive of the United States – has referred repeatedly to January 6th as an insurrection.⁷³ The Department of Justice (DOJ) under Trump’s administration characterized January 6th as an “insurrection” in court filings.⁷⁴ Since then, the DOJ has also brought charges and secured convictions of key players in the attack for “seditious conspiracy,” a charge that closely tracks the definition of insurrection.⁷⁵ President Trump’s own impeachment lawyers stated that “everyone agrees” that there was “‘a violent insurrection of the Capitol’ on January 6th” and referred to the attackers as “insurrectionists.”⁷⁶
68 Barrett, 63 N.C. at 204.
69 United States v. Greathouse, 26 F. Cas. 18, 22 (C.C.N.D. Cal. 1863). This report is not intended to provide a complete legal analysis on the meaning of the term “insurrection.”
70 See H.R. Res. 24, 117th Cong. (2021) (impeaching Donald Trump for “incitement of insurrection”).
71 Barbara Sprunt, 7 GOP Senators Voted to Convict Trump. Only 1 Faces Voters Next Year, NPR (Feb. 15, 2021), https://www.npr.org/sections/trump-impeachment-trial-live-updates/2021/02/15/967878039/7-gop-senators-voted-to-convict-trump-only-1-faces-voters-next-year.
72 See Act of Aug. 5, 2021, Pub. L. No. 117-32 (2021); S. Con. Res. 14, 117th Cong. (2021); S. 35, 117th Cong. (2021).
73 See, e.g., President Joe Biden, Statement By President Joe Biden On the Six-month Anniversary of the January 6th Insurrection On the Capitol (July 6, 2021), https://perma.cc/VS89-CC3B; Letter from Dana A. Remus, Counsel to the President, to David Ferriero, Archivist of the United States (Oct. 8, 2021), https://perma.cc/SND5-58EX; President Joe Biden, Remarks by President Biden at Signing of H.R. 3325, Awarding Congressional Gold Medals To Those Who Protected the U.S. Capitol On January 6, 2021 WL 3418358; President Joe Biden, Remarks By President Biden On Protecting the Sacred, Constitutional Right To Vote, 2021 WL 2935591.
74 United States v. Chansley, No. 21-cr-00003, ECF No. 5 (D. Ariz. filed Jan. 14, 2021), https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Jacob%20Chansley%20Detention%20Memo.pdf.
75 U.S. v. Rhodes, et al., 1:22-cr-00015-APM, Superseding Indictment at 14-32 (D.D.C. June 22, 2022), https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1514906/download; see also Four Oath Keepers Found Guilty of Seditious Conspiracy Related to U.S. Capitol Breach, Dep’t of Just. (Jan. 23, 2023), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/four-oath-keepers-found-guilty-seditious-conspiracy-related-us-capitol-breach; Jury Convicts Four Leaders of the Proud Boys of Seditious Conspiracy Related to U.S. Capitol Breach, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Dist. of Columbia (May 4, 2023), https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/jury-convicts-four-leaders-proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy-related-us-capitol-breach.
…
From the Wayback Machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20211109152320/https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Jacob%20Chansley%20Detention%20Memo.pdf
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1514906/download
https://web.archive.org/web/20241228153729/https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/four-oath-keepers-found-guilty-seditious-conspiracy-related-us-capitol-breach
Fiendish Thingy
(19,023 posts)15. So, who decides? Some guy? You? Elon Musk?
Who decides someone is disqualified ? and how is that decision rendered?
For all your cutting and pasting, you’ve never answered that question. We can all agree Trump should be disqualified, but if we are to be a nation of laws and not tyranny or mob rule, there must be a process.
That’s why there must be an adjudication process, plain and simple.
To ignore that fact, is to ignore reality.
For all your cutting and pasting, you’ve never answered that question. We can all agree Trump should be disqualified, but if we are to be a nation of laws and not tyranny or mob rule, there must be a process.
That’s why there must be an adjudication process, plain and simple.
To ignore that fact, is to ignore reality.
lees1975
(6,180 posts)18. It's not going to happen, of course, but
There was a House investigation which determined Trump to be guilty of insurrection.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,031 posts)19. In January of 2021 a bipartisan majority of the House impeached Donald Trump on the grounds that he led an insurrection
On January 6th, Mitch McConnell minced no words.
https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2021-01-06/read-mitch-mcconnells-statement-to-the-senate-on-the-storming-of-the-capitol
READ: Mitch McConnell's Statement to the Senate on the Storming of the Capitol
The Senate majority leader described the rioting as a 'failed insurrection.'
Jan. 6, 2021, at 9:59 p.m.
…
I want to say to the American people the United States Senate will not be intimidated. We will not be kept out of this chamber by thugs, mobs or threats. We will not bow to lawlessness or intimidation. We are back at our posts. We will discharge our duty under the Constitution and for our nation. And we're going to do it tonight.
This afternoon, Congress began the process of honoring the will of the American people and counting the Electoral College votes. We have fulfilled the solemn duty every four years for more than two centuries. Whether our nation has been at war or at peace, under all manner of threats, even during an ongoing armed rebellion and the Civil War, the clockwork of our democracy has carried on.
The United States and the United States Congress have faced down much greater threats than the unhinged crowd we saw today. We've never been deterred before, and we will not be deterred today. They tried to disrupt our democracy. They failed. They failed. They failed to attempt to obstruct the Congress.
This failed insurrection only underscores how crucial the task before us is for our republic. Our nation was founded precisely so that the free choice of the American people is what shapes our self-government and determines the destiny of our nation – not fear, not force, but the peaceful expression of the popular will.
…
The Senate majority leader described the rioting as a 'failed insurrection.'
Jan. 6, 2021, at 9:59 p.m.
…
I want to say to the American people the United States Senate will not be intimidated. We will not be kept out of this chamber by thugs, mobs or threats. We will not bow to lawlessness or intimidation. We are back at our posts. We will discharge our duty under the Constitution and for our nation. And we're going to do it tonight.
This afternoon, Congress began the process of honoring the will of the American people and counting the Electoral College votes. We have fulfilled the solemn duty every four years for more than two centuries. Whether our nation has been at war or at peace, under all manner of threats, even during an ongoing armed rebellion and the Civil War, the clockwork of our democracy has carried on.
The United States and the United States Congress have faced down much greater threats than the unhinged crowd we saw today. We've never been deterred before, and we will not be deterred today. They tried to disrupt our democracy. They failed. They failed. They failed to attempt to obstruct the Congress.
This failed insurrection only underscores how crucial the task before us is for our republic. Our nation was founded precisely so that the free choice of the American people is what shapes our self-government and determines the destiny of our nation – not fear, not force, but the peaceful expression of the popular will.
…
In February, the majority of the Senate voted to convict Trump, Mitch McConnell voted to acquit (he claimed) not because Trump was innocent, but because he was no longer in office, and therefore beyond the reach of the Senate.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/13/politics/mcconnell-remarks-trump-acquittal/index.html
…
“We have no power to convict and disqualify a former officeholder who is now a private citizen.
…
“The Senate’s decision does not condone anything that happened on or before that terrible day.
“It simply shows that Senators did what the former President failed to do:
“We put our constitutional duty first.”
“We have no power to convict and disqualify a former officeholder who is now a private citizen.
…
“The Senate’s decision does not condone anything that happened on or before that terrible day.
“It simply shows that Senators did what the former President failed to do:
“We put our constitutional duty first.”
(I’d say he’s been adjudicated.)
Fiendish Thingy
(19,023 posts)21. The opinion of one person on the internet does not equate to the Rule Of Law.
Are you saying that McConnell, in his role at the time as senate minority leader, should be the adjudicating authority?
Your whole hypothetical scenario is unraveling the more you cut and paste.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,031 posts)6. U. S. Constitution.net: Trump and the 14th Amendment
https://www.usconstitution.net/trump-and-the-14th-amendment/
Trump and the 14th Amendment
Dec 26, 2024 — by Eleanor Stratton in Constitutional Topics
Understanding Section 3 of the 14th Amendment
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, established after the Civil War, disqualifies certain federal officials who engaged in rebellion or insurrection after swearing to support the Constitution. Its original intent was to prevent former Confederates from returning to positions of power.
The language is straightforward: if you took an oath to support the Constitution and then helped incite or support an uprising, you're disqualified. Historically, it aimed to prevent those who had literally broken away with muskets and canons from holding important offices again.
Today, there's discussion about whether this section might apply to modern political figures. Debates center on whether breaching this clause requires a criminal conviction or can be self-executing. Interpretations vary on what it means to "engage in" insurrection or provide "aid or comfort" to enemies in the context of contemporary politics.
The 14th Amendment's influence remains, ready to challenge those deemed unfit for office due to rebellious actions. The discourse continues, with legal scholars and historians weighing its original significance against America's current political landscape.
…
Dec 26, 2024 — by Eleanor Stratton in Constitutional Topics
Understanding Section 3 of the 14th Amendment
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, established after the Civil War, disqualifies certain federal officials who engaged in rebellion or insurrection after swearing to support the Constitution. Its original intent was to prevent former Confederates from returning to positions of power.
The language is straightforward: if you took an oath to support the Constitution and then helped incite or support an uprising, you're disqualified. Historically, it aimed to prevent those who had literally broken away with muskets and canons from holding important offices again.
Today, there's discussion about whether this section might apply to modern political figures. Debates center on whether breaching this clause requires a criminal conviction or can be self-executing. Interpretations vary on what it means to "engage in" insurrection or provide "aid or comfort" to enemies in the context of contemporary politics.
The 14th Amendment's influence remains, ready to challenge those deemed unfit for office due to rebellious actions. The discourse continues, with legal scholars and historians weighing its original significance against America's current political landscape.
…
lees1975
(6,180 posts)12. It no longer matters to Republicans what it right, or being loyal to the Constitution.
This Congress has too many Republicans in it to behave with integrity or do the right thing. It has found one of its most corrupt members in Mike Johnson, to help dismantle the Constitution, ignoring the parts that require integrity and trust to effectively lead, and regardless of what its members believe or know from evidence, it will not do the right thing in this case, and in failing to do so, will have effectively rendered the constitution moot.
So no argument that Congress can, at this point, keep Trump from becoming President is worth the time it takes to make it.