I confess to back pedaling into Trump territory when I wanted to leave discussions about him in the garbage can. My thread on the read-only break room site has 9,600 replies so I thought I'd bring up a new one.
He's not going away.
Haberman's book is out based on interviews. I won't read it, but the excerpts are interesting. Especially what he says about McConnell, a description that's against the Terms of Service here, but I actually don't disagree with. LOL
Quote
“At one point, Trump made a candid admission that was as jarring as it was ultimately unsurprising. ‘The question I get asked more than any other question: “If you had it to do again, would you have done it?”’Trump said of running for president. ‘The answer is, yeah, I think so. Because here’s the way I look at it. I have so many rich friends and nobody knows who they are.’ … Reflecting on the meaning of having been president of the United States, his first impulse was not to mention public service, or what he felt he’d accomplished, only that it appeared to be a vehicle for fame, and that many experiences were only worth having if someone else envied them.”
I reread section 3 of the 14th Amendment and I don't see anything about Confederates.
Magadonian talking point attempting to minimize the work being done.
Personally, while I think that he's disqualified under the 14th Amendment, I also think it's a wicked long shot. The application has never been tested. It's certain to wind up at the SJC.
True, trump is badly mistaken in thinking that judges appointed by him are bought and paid for, AEB the history of trump-related litigation since 2020. However, it'll be difficult for any judge, state or federal, to open that can of worms.
Remember when DeSantis fired an elected prosecutor who said he would refuse to enforce anti-abortion laws? The judge hearing the case found that the guv's action was unconstitutional - as in illegal - but the judge declined to order any remedy.
Specializes in Vents, Telemetry, Home Care, Home infusion.
Two highly regarded conservative scholars, both long term Federalist Society members, say the case isn't close — the Constitution bars Trump from running again.
Michael Stokes Paulsen University of St. Thomas School of Law
Date Written: August 9, 2023
Quote
Abstract
Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three's full legal consequences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.
First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support as "aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.
Adding these legal scholars opinion.... court cases sure to go to Supreme Court for final word.
The only question is whether American citizens today can uphold that commitment.
By J. Michael Luttig and Laurence H. Tribe
Quote
As students of the United States Constitution for many decades—one of us as a U.S. Court of Appeals judge, the other as a professor of constitutional law, and both as constitutional advocates, scholars, and practitioners—we long ago came to the conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment, the amendment ratified in 1868 that represents our nation's second founding and a new birth of freedom, contains within it a protection against the dissolution of the republic by a treasonous president.
This protection, embodied in the amendment's often-overlooked Section 3, automatically excludes from future office and position of power in the United States government—and also from any equivalent office and position of power in the sovereign states and their subdivisions—any person who has taken an oath to support and defend our Constitution and thereafter rebels against that sacred charter, either through overt insurrection or by giving aid or comfort to the Constitution's enemies.
The historically unprecedented federal and state indictments of former President Donald Trump have prompted many to ask whether his conviction pursuant to any or all of these indictments would be either necessary or sufficient to deny him the office of the presidency in 2024....
BTW - I've been reading that one reason that Luttig and Tribe are so deeply respected is because they are rock-ribbed strict constructionists with enormous intellectual integrity. A couple of silverbacks.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
You and @heron must have missed it, but this section of the Consitution has only been used against Confederates.
Like RICO, another instance of laws being used not as they were intended to in an effort to take down Trump.
I don't even want Trump to run, but this is all wrong.
That is not quite accurate. This amendment was the foundation for the removal of an elected official from office after participation in the events of January 6th.
It seems that this is precisely the purpose of this amendment, to remove from office those who have engaged in attempts to subvert democracy.
That is not quite accurate. This amendment was the foundation for the removal of an elected official from office after participation in the events of January 6th.
It seems that this is precisely the purpose of this amendment, to remove from office those who have engaged in attempts to subvert democracy.
A growing number of Democrats and their followers favor taking the vote out of the hands of the citizenry and disqualifying a candidate based on something he hasn't been charged with, let alone due process.
Tell me again about those who attempt to subvert democracy.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
A growing number of Democrats and their followers favor taking the vote out of the hands of the citizenry and disqualifying a candidate based on something he hasn't been charged with, let alone due process.
Tell me again about those who attempt to subvert democracy.
LOL
That's a sad attempt at projection.
The 14th amendment simply identifies things which disqualify a candidate for political office. Of course we should expect our political candidates to meet all of the requirements and qualifications for the positions they seek, right? Or are you implying that tests for patriotism or fidelity to the constitution should be ignored or even removed?
Trump is the most prominent figure attempting to subvert democracy. This entire thread is about him. Do you want me to talk more about his indifference to our democracy?
A growing number of Democrats and their followers favor taking the vote out of the hands of the citizenry and disqualifying a candidate based on something he hasn't been charged with, let alone due process.
Tell me again about those who attempt to subvert democracy.
I would refer you back to NrsKaren's post above. What, precisely do you disagree with in the Luttig/Tribe argument? What due process has been violated? Have you read the Jan. 6 indictment?
... What due process has been violated? Have you read the Jan. 6 indictment?
If Mr. Trump is convicted on any of the charges levied against him regarding his activities on 6 January, the Disqualification Clause might be applicable. Until then, what Mr. Trump's been indicted for has no bearing.
When the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 I think it obvious what its intent was. Especially considering that it has only been used once since then. I'm not a constitutional scholar, but from what I've read, how to establish its applicability is problematic.
If Mr. Trump is convicted on any of the charges levied against him regarding his activities on 6 January, the Disqualification Clause might be applicable. Until then, what Mr. Trump's been indicted for has no bearing.
When the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 I think it obvious what its intent was. Especially considering that it has only been used once since then. I'm not a constitutional scholar, but from what I've read, how to establish its applicability is problematic.
Beerman didn't mention conviction, he wrote "charged".
I'll ask you the same question I asked Beerman:
In what way do you disagree with the analysis presented in NrsKaren's post?
Beerman didn't mention conviction, he wrote "charged".
[...]
I think @Beerman and I are saying the same thing. He has been charged, not convicted. Until he is he is qualified to hold office.
heron said:
[...]
I'll ask you the same question I asked Beerman:
In what way do you disagree with the analysis presented in NrsKaren's post?
In my lay opinion, I don't disagree with the analysis posted by @NRSKarenRN. And, if Mr. Trump is found guilty of any of the charges he is facing regarding his activities on 6 January, it is possible that the Disqualification Clause would disqualify him from holding office. However, as I previously wrote my concern is this: Mr. Trump has not yet been convicted of anything.
Or are you suggesting that an accusation or allegation alone is sufficient to deprive one of their rights?
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Isn't the question about disqualification via 14th amendment about establishing that Trump did or did not participate in the disqualifying activities rather than conviction of a crime?
heron, ASN, RN
4,671 Posts
Magadonian talking point attempting to minimize the work being done.
Personally, while I think that he's disqualified under the 14th Amendment, I also think it's a wicked long shot. The application has never been tested. It's certain to wind up at the SJC.
True, trump is badly mistaken in thinking that judges appointed by him are bought and paid for, AEB the history of trump-related litigation since 2020. However, it'll be difficult for any judge, state or federal, to open that can of worms.
Remember when DeSantis fired an elected prosecutor who said he would refuse to enforce anti-abortion laws? The judge hearing the case found that the guv's action was unconstitutional - as in illegal - but the judge declined to order any remedy.