Here is a podcast discussing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. FWIW the podcast leans conservative but not pro-Trump. The Constitution lists of requirements for the office of the POTUS. For example, one has to be at least 35 years old to be sworn in. Being younger than 35 years old is a disqualification. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment provides another disqualification. If one swears an oath to uphold the Constitution and then partakes in an insurrection, you are disqualified. This is an extremely clear reading of the text. The disqualification is "self executing". One does not have to be found guilty of "insurrection", however the city, county, state and country defines it. Obviously if a state pursues this, the USSC will have the final say. Either they will follow a strict reading of the 14th Amendment or they will make a partisan decision. The state that pursues this will both be following the Constitution and acting in a political manner. I have zero doubts that the Rs would use Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, if they could. Disqualification from Public Office Under the 14th Amendment Background as Foreground: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment and January 6th by Gerard N. Magliocca Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law [University of Chicago Law School] William Baude and Michael Paulsen Write About Section 3 Disqualification for Trump Holding Office [The Atlantic] The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again By J. Michael Luttig (former federal judge) and Laurence H. Tribe (professor of constitutional law) [CREW] The case for Donald Trump’s disqualification under the 14th Amendment [CREW] Judge removes Griffin from office for engaging in the January 6 insurrection
Outstanding post, thanks for laying out the law and salient points. @tinman take notes. Not everyone wants to watch Youtube hacks rant for 8-12 minutes on a two minute point.
Been posted: https://bbs.clutchfans.net/threads/giving-the-insurrectionist-the-significant-finger.320748/ But this thread has a better title. Even so, don't care. I don't want our election settled by some Constitutional sleight of hand.
Just let him run I say, he's not swaying most sane independents and people will show up just to vote against him. You throw in another candidate like a Youngkin or Kemp and that could potentially be an L for the Dems.
I figured what's the harm since he was already tagged but in general I avoid his threads and posts like the plague.
You don't want the supreme law of the land to determine election eligibility? So my 8yo should be able to run for president?
I laughed at the change in topic around 41 on the possibility scrotus deems J6 was not an insurrection. Git it dun, Clarence! I think tinman is a he, it's in the name?
I find this intriguing. Would love to have it really vetted out and settled by the courts, but realistically we could only expect a partisan resolution. The SC would never disqualify Trump.
Tinman lives in the D&D now and would have seen it anyway. I guess posting in the GARM about the Championship era Rockets got old. Which is a shame, 'cause kids need to recognize and he was a good curator of that knowledge.
Strongly disagree that the SC wouldn't DQ Trump now, the winds of change are afoot for GOP politicians (and yes, you can count the right-wing judges in that lot). Maybe not uncle Thomas, since his wife is a crackpot Qanon witch.
Went looking for that thread but did not find it. I know Section 3 has been mentioned in other threads as well. Should a 30 year old run for President then? Should someone who is not a native born American run for President? The Constitution explicitly disqualifies him/her in both cases ... just as the Constitution appears to prohibit Trump from becoming POTUS again. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment text is clear. Even given the clear text, I am unsure how the USSC would rule. My best guess is that this is a 50/50 proposition. One thing that has chapped my ass is that Trump took an oath to uphold the Constitution, which clearly he did not take seriously. Trump has never been held accountable for committing crimes. The DoJ has Trump dead to rights in two cases. If Trump wins in 2024, he surely will pardon his own convictions and dismiss any open prosecutions. Given this, I do want somebody to force the Section 3 issue before the 2024 election and make the USSC decide. Better now, than to wait until after a Trump victory in 2024. That wold make January 6th look like a walk in the park.
If nothing dramatic happen to Biden's health between now and November 2024, I agree. if anything, January 6th and Roe v Wade should make the 2024 election bluer than 2020.
Never met the person and not going to presume anything. Plus, with all the anti-woke nonsense, I'm just having a little fun at their expense.
Section 3 is not nearly as clear as the age requirement, or even the murky natural born citizen rule. The basis of deciding the age question is clear and mathematical. To decide about section 3, you have to define an "insurrection", decide if J6 qualifies, and figure out of Trump engaged in it. A conviction for insurrection (or maybe a conspiracy to defraud the United States) would help but not guarantee it. But you want government functionaries to decide, and for SCOTUS to approve, without a conviction? He is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. That's some anti-democratic bs. That's tantamount to abridging my right to vote.
