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.
Look at the wording - it’s clearly intended to be an automatic disqualification. The only way you could possibly arrive at the conclusion that the Office of the President is exempt from this section is by jumping through frankly absurd and facile semantic hoops.
But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Pointedly, the only way Congress should be involved (per the relevant section) is in rescinding the disqualification.
The Supreme Court is prepared to jump through those hoops. They’ve practiced long and hard for this opportunity.
Clarence Thomas's Patreon is quite well funded, so it'd be dishonest if he didn't.
(Also copied from another post)
Well, they’re only appointed for life, and they did somewhat recently vastly broaden the scope of the 2nd Amendment, and political violence is on the rise, so I wouldn’t be shocked if one or more people decided enough is enough and conducted a “citizen’s kinetic impeachment”, as it were.
Regardless of how things ultimately turn out, things are definitely 10/10 fucky, and I absolutely hate it.
Unfortunately the "left" in the US is full of thinky ideologues and very few people of action.
Again it did not pass the 2/3 rule. That is critical to make it lawful. I don't know why that is so hard to understand.
I get it. Trump is a sedacious bastards. But regardless they have yet to convict him of that in the legal court or within the Senate. Ones of those needs to have happened and it has not.
And by the way it is not uncommon. Was done to Clinton for what amounted to a private matter but again did not pass the Senate and thus it did not effect his access to office. As it shouldn't have in his case.
It doesn’t require conviction. The amendment is written such that disqualification is automatic.
Plus Trump is a rapist.
Traitor rapist is not the horse I would have expected the gop to hitch their cart to.
But here we are
Christians love him!
He's also allowed to run again despite declaring victory the last time, meaning that he is ineligible to run by his own reasoning.
We’re available for purchase by the highest bidder!
Right? I mean if justice can be aborted/ sidetracked by a simple appeal, how effective is it? Surely he was found to be liable by a judge, the ruling should stand during the appeal, not be put on hold.
I honestly do not think he will be allowed to take office. I just think things are moving at. Slow pace to make sure things are done correctly.
Probably in some hopes that he will just stop running on his own or something.
But I doubt that he will ever make his way back into office.
What the fuck is wrong with the USA?
The Electoral College (and land based instead of population based representation)
The Citizens United decision (unlimited money to campaign)
First Past the Post voting (mathematically determined 2 party extremism)
Not necessarily in that order. Fixing any one would put the country many degrees to the left though.
Who are these people supporting him, and how can we possibly go on living in the same country with them?
My thoughts exactly.
He hasn't been convicted of sedation yet and the impeachments did not pass the Senate for removal. Basically that is like an acquittal.
Agree what is wrong with the US but legally it is still up in the air.
This take is wildly ahistorical. Confederates were barred from office without being impeached. Impeachment is not mentioned in the 14th amendment at all. In fact, it explicitly mentions a remedy for people who have committed insurrection: the Congress can vote by 2/3 majority to reinstate an insurrectionist's right to hold public office.
convicted of sedation
I thought that was Bill Cosby
Well that too with Trump and Epstein. But I may have meant sedition.
But it shouldn't still legally be in the air. He's already been proven to be a traitor.
I agree with that. Shouldn't still be legally up in the air. Proven in public opinion, sure. Legal proven no.
Basically that is like an acquittal.
Not really. He has still been impeached, it's just his own party chose not to remove him from office over the impeachment.
Yes we knew that. The point is legally he has been acquitted. Fair or not he has not been officially convicted and thus this can not be used to eliminate him from running for office.
I know people here don't agree with it. I wish he was convicted myself. But it's is not grey. It is 'not really'. Your either convicted or acquitted and he was the latter because that is how the constitution works. Now use your vote should it come to that.
But it isn't an acquittal, and he has officially been impeached.
It's more like he was found guilty but then given no punishment at sentencing.
That absolutely is not what impeachments is. Look it up. Impeachments is equivalent to charging someone only. It then basically comes to the house to investigate it and decide if he is guilty. Guilty meaning removed from office. I don't understand why people do not know this.
Ya I think he is slimy and likely should have been revoved from office. That that takes 2/3 of the Senate vote. But not getting 2/3 of the vote does not mean he is innocent.
That absolutely is not what impeachments is.
I wasn't trying to say that was what impeachment is, rather that is what impeachment is like.
Impeachment is inredibly serious and rare. What we have faced is nothing like anything the founding fathers could have predicted. As such, any textual analysis would be flawed - the Founding Fathers could not - and WOULD NOT - have allowed Trump.
Trump has already far surpassed this line in the sand, not just from my own personal viewpoint but from the view point of almost every point of reasoning. I can confidently say that Trump instigated insurrection and is guilty of such far beyond the justification of any reasonable proceedings, such that I can do so without any real fear of reprecussions from the legal system - Donald Trump is objectively proven to be a criminal and a conman.
People who deny this fact are simply delusionsal and have no bases beyond being bitter losers to say otherwise.
Donald Trump is a loser, and his supporters are merely gullible losers who are also poor.
The point is legally he has been acquitted.
No he hasn’t. Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. He hasn’t been legally charged yet, though that process is in the works. It’s taking a long time, because the seditious conspiracy plot was insanely large and wide-reaching. It’s the largest criminal conspiracy in the history of the nation, absolutely dwarfing Watergate which took 3.5 years.
Impeachment is a political remedy more akin to being fired than criminally charged, and is not required to invoke the 14th.
Ah, yes, the well-known legal doctrine of "basically that is like."
It absolutely blows my mind that a twice impeached insurrectionist single term president is not only running again but allowed to.
What the fuck is wrong with the USA?
Don't forget, he is the leading candidate for that party too...
(Copied from another post)
The thing is, the 14th Amendment, Section 3 isn’t vague on this point - he IS disqualified:
Look at the wording - it’s clearly intended to be an automatic disqualification. The only way you could possibly arrive at the conclusion that the Office of the President is exempt from this section is by jumping through frankly absurd and facile semantic hoops.
Pointedly, the only way Congress should be involved (per the relevant section) is in rescinding the disqualification.
The Supreme Court is prepared to jump through those hoops. They’ve practiced long and hard for this opportunity.
Clarence Thomas's Patreon is quite well funded, so it'd be dishonest if he didn't.
(Also copied from another post)
Well, they’re only appointed for life, and they did somewhat recently vastly broaden the scope of the 2nd Amendment, and political violence is on the rise, so I wouldn’t be shocked if one or more people decided enough is enough and conducted a “citizen’s kinetic impeachment”, as it were.
Regardless of how things ultimately turn out, things are definitely 10/10 fucky, and I absolutely hate it.
Unfortunately the "left" in the US is full of thinky ideologues and very few people of action.
Again it did not pass the 2/3 rule. That is critical to make it lawful. I don't know why that is so hard to understand.
I get it. Trump is a sedacious bastards. But regardless they have yet to convict him of that in the legal court or within the Senate. Ones of those needs to have happened and it has not.
And by the way it is not uncommon. Was done to Clinton for what amounted to a private matter but again did not pass the Senate and thus it did not effect his access to office. As it shouldn't have in his case.
It doesn’t require conviction. The amendment is written such that disqualification is automatic.
Plus Trump is a rapist.
Traitor rapist is not the horse I would have expected the gop to hitch their cart to.
But here we are
Christians love him!
He's also allowed to run again despite declaring victory the last time, meaning that he is ineligible to run by his own reasoning.
We’re available for purchase by the highest bidder!
Right? I mean if justice can be aborted/ sidetracked by a simple appeal, how effective is it? Surely he was found to be liable by a judge, the ruling should stand during the appeal, not be put on hold.
I honestly do not think he will be allowed to take office. I just think things are moving at. Slow pace to make sure things are done correctly.
Probably in some hopes that he will just stop running on his own or something.
But I doubt that he will ever make his way back into office.
Not necessarily in that order. Fixing any one would put the country many degrees to the left though.
My thoughts exactly.
He hasn't been convicted of sedation yet and the impeachments did not pass the Senate for removal. Basically that is like an acquittal.
Agree what is wrong with the US but legally it is still up in the air.
This take is wildly ahistorical. Confederates were barred from office without being impeached. Impeachment is not mentioned in the 14th amendment at all. In fact, it explicitly mentions a remedy for people who have committed insurrection: the Congress can vote by 2/3 majority to reinstate an insurrectionist's right to hold public office.
I thought that was Bill Cosby
Well that too with Trump and Epstein. But I may have meant sedition.
But it shouldn't still legally be in the air. He's already been proven to be a traitor.
I agree with that. Shouldn't still be legally up in the air. Proven in public opinion, sure. Legal proven no.
Not really. He has still been impeached, it's just his own party chose not to remove him from office over the impeachment.
Yes we knew that. The point is legally he has been acquitted. Fair or not he has not been officially convicted and thus this can not be used to eliminate him from running for office.
I know people here don't agree with it. I wish he was convicted myself. But it's is not grey. It is 'not really'. Your either convicted or acquitted and he was the latter because that is how the constitution works. Now use your vote should it come to that.
But it isn't an acquittal, and he has officially been impeached.
It's more like he was found guilty but then given no punishment at sentencing.
That absolutely is not what impeachments is. Look it up. Impeachments is equivalent to charging someone only. It then basically comes to the house to investigate it and decide if he is guilty. Guilty meaning removed from office. I don't understand why people do not know this.
Ya I think he is slimy and likely should have been revoved from office. That that takes 2/3 of the Senate vote. But not getting 2/3 of the vote does not mean he is innocent.
I wasn't trying to say that was what impeachment is, rather that is what impeachment is like.
Impeachment is inredibly serious and rare. What we have faced is nothing like anything the founding fathers could have predicted. As such, any textual analysis would be flawed - the Founding Fathers could not - and WOULD NOT - have allowed Trump.
Trump has already far surpassed this line in the sand, not just from my own personal viewpoint but from the view point of almost every point of reasoning. I can confidently say that Trump instigated insurrection and is guilty of such far beyond the justification of any reasonable proceedings, such that I can do so without any real fear of reprecussions from the legal system - Donald Trump is objectively proven to be a criminal and a conman.
People who deny this fact are simply delusionsal and have no bases beyond being bitter losers to say otherwise.
Donald Trump is a loser, and his supporters are merely gullible losers who are also poor.
No he hasn’t. Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. He hasn’t been legally charged yet, though that process is in the works. It’s taking a long time, because the seditious conspiracy plot was insanely large and wide-reaching. It’s the largest criminal conspiracy in the history of the nation, absolutely dwarfing Watergate which took 3.5 years.
Impeachment is a political remedy more akin to being fired than criminally charged, and is not required to invoke the 14th.
Ah, yes, the well-known legal doctrine of "basically that is like."