╌>

The Constitution bars Trump from holding public office ever again | The Hill

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  vic-eldred  •  last year  •  100 comments

By:   Donald K. Sherman (The Hill)

The Constitution bars Trump from holding public office ever again | The Hill
Enforcing the Disqualification Clause against an official who violated their oath is an act of patriotism, not partisanship.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


While some ­on the right portray accountability for the Jan. 6 Capitol riot as just another partisan dispute, two prominent conservative legal scholars have made the case that the Constitution disqualifies former President Trump from public office.

Last week, law professors William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas — both members of the conservative Federalist Society — argued in a law review article that Trump is already constitutionally forbidden from serving in public office because of Section Three of the 14th Amendment.

This section, also known as the Disqualification Clause, bars from office any government officer who takes an oath to defend the Constitution and then engages in or aids an insurrection against the United States. Only a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress can act to remove such disability.

It should not come as a surprise that Trump meets this standard. All three branches of the government have identified the attack on the Capitol as an insurrection, with multiple federal judges, bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate, as well as the bipartisan Jan. 6 House select committee, citing Trump as its central cause.

As Baude and Paulsen note, "Section Three requires no prior criminal-law conviction, for treason or any other defined crime, as a prerequisite for its disqualification to apply." Trump's indictment by special counsel Jack Smith for election-related crimes only further bolsters the case for his constitutional disqualification.

Those federal criminal charges include conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights by attempting to "oppress, threaten or intimidate" people in their free exercise and enjoyment of their right to vote.

Although Trump's role in fomenting the attack on the Capitol has been well documented, Baude and Paulsen argue that the "full legal consequences" of Section Three "have not been appreciated or enforced." As they explain, the Disqualification Clause is "an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation."

The provision is also "self-executing … without the need for additional action by Congress." As the professors note, Section Three "can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications."

Last September, three New Mexico residents represented by my organization, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, won the first case in more than 150 years removing an elected official from office based on participation in an insurrection. The court ruled that then-New Mexico County Commissioner Couy Griffin had violated Section Three of the 14th Amendment by recruiting men for battle to join Trump's "wild" effort to overturn the election Jan. 6, normalized violence and breached police barriers as part of the weaponized mob that allowed others to overwhelm law enforcement and storm the Capitol. Griffin's removal marked the first case at the federal or state level concluding that what occurred Jan. 6 was an insurrection.

In Griffin's case, the court found that disqualifying officials under Section Three of the 14th Amendment does not conflict with the First Amendment right to protest. It also rebuffed attempts by Griffin to conflate Jan. 6 with Black Lives Matter protests.

In their article, Baude and Paulsen explain that "to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them," including "the free speech principles of the First Amendment."

Most importantly, the authors conclude that Section Three covers a "broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order" and "a broad range of former offices, including the presidency." They state explicitly that Section Three "disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election."

Every president, regardless of party, takes an oath to preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States. Enforcing the Disqualification Clause against an official who violated that oath is an act of patriotism, not partisanship. As Baude and Paulsen correctly state, "Officials must enforce the Constitution because it is law … Section Three has legal force already."

The Disqualification Clause has already been used successfully to promote accountability for the insurrection, and, in the coming months, it will be used again to prevent Trump and others from serving in public office.


Donald K. Sherman is executive vice president and chief counsel at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    last year

That seems to make sense to me. If Trump is convicted, I expect a lawsuit right away so that his candidacy is suspended. If there is no court ruling before the 2024 election, I have to regard the proponents of this claim to be acting in bad faith.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    last year

So what would you recommend the GOP do right now?   The GOP has a poison pill that will almost certainly ruin its chance for seating an R PotUS in 2024.    What should they do?

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  TᵢG @1.1    last year

Concentrate on making sure the voting public knows that Brandon is every bit the criminal Trump is; and that the Federal government is  tool of the Democrat Party.

Bring Brandon down to Trump's level. Even if the POS Garland will never indict him.

Reelecting Democrats isn't acceptable at any level. 

Other than that; let the primaries sort themselves out. Don't play favorites like the Democrats do and tilt the election in any Establishment candidate's favor. Looking at you Pence, Christie, and Haley. Then actually support the candidate that wins the primary. The Establishment Republicans didn't in 2020. Campaign for Democrats and lose your place in the party. Keep party campaign money sitting on the sidelines- don't expect a dime more.

I know leftists desperately want the GOP to be like the DNC and play favorites. They will lose for sure if they do.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.1    last year

In the meantime, the GOP is going to nominate Trump.   Do you not see the problem I outlined?

Reelecting Democrats isn't acceptable at any level. 

Definition of blind partisanship.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.1    last year
Concentrate on making sure the voting public knows that Brandon is every bit the criminal Trump is

So, step one is lie to the voters.  Republicans have already been doing that.

and that the Federal government is  tool of the Democrat Party.

Step 2, same as step one.

Bring Brandon down to Trump's level.

First Biden would have to start calling his opponents by juvenile nicknames.  Don't see any indication of him doing that.

Even if the POS Garland will never indict him.

First Biden needs to commit a crime somewhere other than in a republican's wet dream.

Reelecting Democrats isn't acceptable at any level.

Partisan bullshit.  

I know leftists desperately want the GOP to be like the DNC and play favorites.

So you feel that the RNC paying Trump's legal bills is NOT playing favorites?

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
1.1.4  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.2    last year
In the meantime, the GOP is going to nominate Trump. 

And the Democrats are going to nominate Biden. 

Definition of blind partisanship.

Says someone who shows their "blind partisanship" in every post

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.4    last year
And the Democrats are going to nominate Biden. 

Yes, they apparently are.   You are deflecting.

Says someone who shows their "blind partisanship" in every post

Back up that demonstrably false claim.


Do you not see the problem with the GOP nominating Trump and potentially winding up with a nominee who cannot be elected?

Hello?

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
1.1.6  arkpdx  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.3    last year
step one is lie to the voters

You mean like having a foreign agent come up with a phony document and accuse someone of collusion when none existed. The Dems already used those. 

First Biden needs to commit a crime somewhere other than in a republican's wet dream.

You mean crimes like accepting millions of dollars from a hostile government and conspiracy. Those kind of crimes? Which he is guilty. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
1.1.7  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.5    last year
Back up that demonstrably false claim.

Go back and look and you previous comments. I have neither the time nor the inclination to do it for you. 

You do not seem to care about  the Democrats nominating someone so incompetent and senile that couldn't get a job as a Walmart greeter. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.8  Ozzwald  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.6    last year
You mean like having a foreign agent come up with a phony document and accuse someone of collusion when none existed.

Congratulations!  You have step 1 down pat.

You mean crimes like accepting millions of dollars from a hostile government and conspiracy.

Wow!  You have step 2 down as well.  Has someone been practicing the 1st 2 steps??????

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.7    last year

You continue to make claims you cannot back up.

You do not seem to care about  the Democrats nominating someone so incompetent and senile that couldn't get a job as a Walmart greeter. 

First of all, you blow your credibility by claiming Biden could not competently work even as a Walmart greeter.   You should know by now that such hyperbole causes readers to disregard what you write.   It definitely does for me.

Second, you continually refuse to register what I write.   You keep pushing your D stereotype on me and basically inventing positions for me that I have repeatedly shown to be false.

I suggest you cease with this incessant misrepresentation.

Now, attempt to get this registered, I am against Biden for PotUS.   But if we have a matchup between Biden and Trump and it looks as though Trump has a shot at winning, I will absolutely vote AGAINST Trump by voting for Biden.   If those are not the circumstances, then my vote will vary accordingly.   If you need further details, here is a link to recent post that shows my strategy.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
1.1.10  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.9    last year
You continue to make claims you cannot back up. Biden could not competently work even as a Walmart greeter.

I call 'em like I see them. 

But if we have a matchup between Biden and Trump 

Just as I have said I will not vote for Biden under any circumstances 

BTW. In the last two election cycles I didn't vote for Trump in the primaries. I did vote for him in the general because the democrat nominees were so bad.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.11  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.10    last year
I call 'em like I see them. 

You spout bullshit and refuse to back it up (since you cannot).   I suggest you cease with the bullshit and make claims that you can support with an argument.

Just as I have said I will not vote for Biden under any circumstances 

We all know you are a blind partisan.   No need to keep telling us.

If you want to provide something new, tell us which D you would vote for.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.12  bugsy  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.4    last year

[Deleted]

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
1.1.13  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.11    last year
[Deleted]
If you want to provide something new, tell us which D you would vote for.

Can't answer that. I am not psychic and I don't know who's running. 

 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
1.1.14  MrFrost  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.6    last year
Which he is guilty. 

When was the conviction? 2 billion from the saudi's? Trump pays more in taxes in China than he does here and his daughter got 18 patents in China???? Hello? Trump is a Xi puppet.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
1.1.15  MrFrost  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.1    last year
Brandon is every bit the criminal Trump is

I'll assume you misspelled Biden, (it's ok, long name), and ask you to list all the indictments. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.16  bugsy  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.13    last year

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.1.17  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.1    last year

Are you okay, Ronin2?  Seriously, your comment is worrisome.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.1.18  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.10    last year

[deleted]

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
1.1.19  arkpdx  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.14    last year
When was the conviction

One could ask the same thing about the things the left accuses Trump of. And just so you know, an indictment is not a conviction. 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
1.1.20  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.19    last year

Accuses?  Lol, Trump announces them himself.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.21  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.19    last year

Compare the Biden-Hunter connection with Russiagate.   Both have roughly the same amount of quality evidence.

Trump accusations are based on substantial evidence; much of which we have all observed ourselves.   There is no comparison.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
1.1.22  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.21    last year
Compare the Biden-Hunter connection with Russiagate.   Both have roughly the same amount of quality evidence.

You mean like Hunter's laptop and his emails? Like his cocaine found in the White House? You mean like the note that gave the distribution of a Chinese payoff including some for the "Big Guy"?  Like daddy Joe holding Ukrainian aid until they stopped investigating Hunter?

Trump accusations are based on substantial evidence;

When the investigators are working for and beholding to the investigate, and the media is on their side to, not much evidence will come out

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
1.1.23  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.21    last year

When do you think Biden will be indicted for having classified material?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.24  JohnRussell  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.19    last year
And just so you know, an indictment is not a conviction. 

We are awaiting the inevitable day when you say the four convictions dont count because we have a "two tiered" justice system. 

Will you ever run out of excuses for Trump?  Apparently not. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.25  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.22    last year

Yes, arkpdx, that is what I am referring to.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.26  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.23    last year
When do you think Biden will be indicted for having classified material?

Never.   Trump was not indicted for merely having classified material.

Get a clue, this is basic stuff and it gets old constantly explaining the obvious.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
1.1.27  arkpdx  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.24    last year
We are awaiting the inevitable day when you say the four convictions dont count 

Why would I say that? Unlike liberals, I actually believe in our system of justice and I do wait for a conviction. 

we have a "two tiered" justice system

Apparently we do as far as Democrats are concerned. Hillary mishandled classified documents and was never prosecuted. Biden mishandled classified documents and he isn't even being investigated. Hillary actually did collude with the Russians and other foreign agents and again was not even investigated. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
1.1.28  1stwarrior  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.23    last year

In four different locations over a 40 year CAREER in the government.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
1.1.29  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.26    last year
Trump was not indicted for merely having classified material.

Then what was he indicted for. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.1.30  JBB  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.29    last year

original Dont you know?These is just the Georgia Indictments. There are eighty others...

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
1.1.31  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.22    last year

Funny how anyone can drop cocaine in the Whitehouse and it automatically becomes Hunter Biden’s.  Obviously that was the plan from the beginning.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.32  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.29    last year
Then what was he indicted for. 

Read the indictments.   This forum alone has provided members with the actual indictments as well as considerable explanation of same.

There is no excuse for someone like you (and, apparently, JustJim) to ask what Trump was indicted for.   

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
1.1.33  arkpdx  replied to  JBB @1.1.30    last year

Now maybe you can comment on what my comment was concerning. That was tigs comment about the documents indictment 

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
1.1.34  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.32    last year

I asked:

When do you think Biden will be indicted for having classified material?

Which was very narrow in its scope. 

You answered:

Never. Trump was not indicted for merely having classified material.

Which expanded it greatly. 

Now why don't you think Biden should be indicted for mishandling classified material? 

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
1.1.35  arkpdx  replied to  JBB @1.1.30    last year

Indictments are not convictions and have nothing necessarily to do with guilt. Now after there are convictions we can talk. Until the your opinion is just that, yours. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.36  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.34    last year
Now why don't you think Biden should be indicted for mishandling classified material? 

Neither Trump nor Biden nor Pence should be indicted for merely possessing classified material.   That is a violation of the PRA but that act is not criminal.

The proper action, when docs are discovered, is to cooperate with the authorities to secure them.   Both Biden and Pence did that.   Trump, in contrast, engaged in delay tactics, lied about the documents he had, tried to hide documents from authorities, suborned others to do likewise and even, at least on one occasion, knowingly and willingly revealed contents of a document to a reporter.


Also see: 1.1.32 to get educated on what Trump was charged in his indictments.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.37  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.6    last year

Do you have any proof of that?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.38  Tessylo  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.1.17    last year

When weren't they?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.39  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.22    last year

Lies and made up nonsense, is that all you have?

What about Hunter's laptop??????

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.40  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.29    last year

Haven't you read any of the indictments???????????????

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.41  Tessylo  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @1.1.31    last year

BINGO

BANGO

BONGO!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.42  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.36    last year

One employee was also told to destroy evidence -- so since it wasn't actually destroyed he's  not guilty I imagine.

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.1.43  JBB  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.33    last year

Nope, Trump was indicated for not returning classified documents when he was specifically asked for them, falsely claimed he didn't have them or they were his and finally refused to return them, hid them and cconspired with others to move them while obstructing justice and lying to the investigators all along the way, unlike Joe Biden and Pence who cooperated, returned everything and told the truth...

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.1.44  JBB  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.35    last year

Wrongo! It is not just my opinion! It is also the opinions of all the the prosecutors and all the four different grand juries in the four separate jurisdictions who saw all the evidence and who then voted to indicate Trump's opinions, too!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.45  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.29    last year

I just realized what a stupid statement that was.  

Try reading the indictment(s).

Stop expecting everyone to do your homework for you.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
1.1.46  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.36    last year

Then I am sure you must think Hillary should be indicted, tried and convicted also. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.47  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.46    last year

[Deleted]

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
1.1.48  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.47    last year

[Deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.49  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.46    last year

I am truly tired of telling you that I believe Hillary engaged in irresponsible wrongdoing and probably could have been charged.

Since I do not beat around the bush and tell you straight out, you are to blame for not registering the answer.

Since she has not been charged there is no comparing Hillary to Trump.

Further, Trump's collective wrongful acts so far overshadow those of Hillary (or any other politician for that matter) that any comparison is a category error.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.50  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.49    last year
Since she has not been charged there is no comparing Hillary to Trump.

That’s the problem with your logic and simply highlights the two tiered nature of our justice system.    This isn’t a defense of Trumps actions but rather simply pointing Hillary’s equally offensive/illegal behavior.

Trump gets prosecuted …. Hillary doesn’t.

And that should piss you off.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.51  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.50    last year

My logic is sound.   One cannot compare indictments to no indictments.

And when I compared wrongdoing (which one can indeed do) I noted that the collective wrongdoing of Trump greatly overshadows that of Hillary.

Do you not recognize that?

Your 'analysis' is flawed.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
1.1.52  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.49    last year

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.53  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.51    last year
My logic is sound.   One cannot compare indictments to no indictments.

No, my logic is unbiased and spot on.    Yours, not so much

And when I compared wrongdoing (which one can indeed do) I noted that the collective wrongdoing of Trump greatly overshadows that of Hillary. Do you not recognize that?

I’m not the one having recognition problems.    You refuse to recognize the reality of illegal behavior by Hillary and the free pass she got after doing so.     I on the other hand have already pointed out I wasn’t excusing Trumps actions.    But you’ve accepted Hillary’s actions as somehow being “not as bad.”   You’re attempting to put whip cream on shit with Hillarys behavior.   Ridiculous!

Your 'analysis' is flawed.

Nope, that would be yours.    Collective wrong doings?    Your rationalizations on such are flawed.    And greatly.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.54  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.53    last year
You refuse to recognize the reality of illegal behavior by Hillary

Then you fail to read.   The best we can state is wrongdoing .... which I have stated.   Illegal behavior is determined by a court of law.   You know this, right, so what is your problem?

Your post has no argument just taunts.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.55  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.54    last year

I’ve failed at nothing and as usual, stand by all my posts.

No more need be said

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
1.1.56  MrFrost  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.50    last year
Hillary’s equally offensive/illegal behavior.

When was she president again? I forget...

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
1.1.57  arkpdx  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.56    last year
When was she president again? 

Thank God she never was but then again the laws she broke do not say that only presidents are subject to them. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
1.1.58  MrFrost  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.22    last year
Like his cocaine found in the White House?

Prove it.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.59  Sparty On  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.56    last year
I forget...

Yes you did.    You conveniently forgot from day one she considered Trump an illegitimate President.    So in her mind she was President.   Regardless, that’s irrelevant.    

Her actions were just as bad as Trumps.    If not worse.    No amount of TDS can change that.    She’s no special class.    Except in her own mind.   She’s guilty and I find it amazing how many sheeple she has defending her.

Simply amazing.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2  TᵢG    last year
Fourteenth Amendment, 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.

The right to remove disabilities imposed by this Section was exercised by Congress at different times on behalf of enumerated individuals. 1   In 1872, the disabilities were removed, by a blanket act, from all persons   except Senators and Representatives of the Thirty-sixth and Thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States. 2   Twenty-six years later, Congress enacted that   the disability imposed by section 3 . . . incurred heretofore, is hereby removed. 3

One legal sticking point is the word 'insurrection' and how it applies to Trump:

What Is Considered Insurrection?

While the term "insurrection" is not explicitly defined by federal law, courts and legal scholars generally interpret it as a violent uprising or organized resistance against the government or its regulations.

.

I think there is an excellent chance to constitutionally tag Trump with "insurrection or rebellion " against the CotUS but adjudication is not a science.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @2    last year

if jack smith makes trump read that sometime during the trial, trump will implicate himself within 3 questions...

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @2    last year

[Deleted]

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
2.3  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @2    last year
"insurrection or rebellion"

I will say it again. Being accused of something is not the same as being guilty of something. Just because you want it to be so does not make it so. [Deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.3.1  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @2.3    last year

We understand everything just fine, [Deleted]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3  Sean Treacy    last year

He hasn’t been convicted of either insurrection or rebellion.  Without that, not sure how this argument stands.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    last year

If convicted in the Jan 6th indictment I think it would be easy to conclude Trump engaged in rebellion against the CotUS.

I suspect it is legally viable to conclude Trump engaged in rebellion against the CotUS without even requiring the Jan 6th trial.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  TᵢG @3.1    last year
If convicted in the Jan 6th indictment I think it would be easy to conclude Trumpengaged inrebellion against the CotUS.'

And if the conviction gets overturned by a higher court? Considering the trial is taking place in the Democrat bastion of stupidity DC- with a far leftist lunatic judge the chances for a fair trial are nil. 

I suspect it is legally viable to conclude Trump engaged in rebellion against the CotUS without even requiring the Jan 6th trial.

I suspect that leftists will agree- since they regularly shit on the Constitution and the law. I doubt the vast majority of Americans will follow suit. Doing so will bring an immediate end to the US.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1.1    last year

You seem to be rooting for the Disqualification Clause to be inapplicable.   

Do you want Trump as the GOP nominee??

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  TᵢG @3.1    last year
If convicted in the Jan 6th indictment I think it would be easy to conclude Trump engaged in rebellion against the CotUS. I suspect it is legally viable to conclude Trump engaged in rebellion against the CotUS without even requiring the Jan 6th trial.

Here's a question I have been wondering about.  Suppose the worst happens, and Trump is re-elected.  His 1st act will be pardoning himself for 1/6 activities and convictions.

Accepting a pardon is legally equivalent to admitting guilt, which would make him ineligible to be POTUS, which means he cannot pardon himself.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.3    last year

It would be a constitutional fiasco.   

Another point, if this were to occur the stock market would take a hit and that could trigger economic repercussions.

But, happily, short of a third party siphoning votes from the D, there is no viable chance for Trump to be elected.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.1.5  Snuffy  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.3    last year
Accepting a pardon is legally equivalent to admitting guilt , which would make him ineligible to be POTUS, which means he cannot pardon himself.

Not exactly, but it would open one hell of a can of worms.  Perhaps even a constitutional crisis.

In  Lorrance v. Commandant, USDB , the 10 th circuit finds that accepting a pardon does not confess to anything and does not preclude the recipient from petitioning for habeas corpus relief from his or her court-martial conviction and sentence. 

Put simply, a presidential pardon does not denote innocence or change an existing conviction. Rather, it represents forgiveness. When one accepts a presidential pardon, he or she is not admitting guilt or waiving habeas rights. It remains unseen as to whether or not the Department of Justice will petition the Supreme Court to get a final answer.

If You Accept a Pardon Does it Admit Guilt? (courtmartiallaw.com)

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
3.1.6  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @3.1    last year
it is legally viable to conclude Trump engaged in rebellion against the CotUS without even requiring the Jan 6th trial.

How so? By holding a protest rally? As your queen and goddess once said, " they were America's and have a right to protest". 

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
3.1.7  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.4    last year
there is no viable chance for Trump to be elected.

I would not be so sure of that. As of an August first poll they are neck and neck

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
3.1.8  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.3    last year
"His 1st act will be pardoning himself for 1/6 activities and convictions."

He cannot pardon himself if he is found guilty in Georgia of the crimes he is alleged to have committed there - it is a State rather than Federal matter. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @3.1.6    last year
How so?

The SecState for each state are the authorities who determine who can be on ballots.   Any (or all) of them can disqualify Trump based on his unconstitutional attempts to steal the US election and raising his supporter's ire with lies (one can go on and on with myriad examples and supporting evidence).    The SecStates have the authority;  it comes with the office.  

Their decisions can be challenged.   The challenge would then be adjudicated.   If the plaintiff wins, Trump goes on the ballot.   If not, he does not.

That is how.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.10  JohnRussell  replied to  arkpdx @3.1.6    last year

Trump is not legally charged with causing the riot, although he did. He is charged with a plot to steal the election, which would also qualify as rebellion. 

It is tiresome to have to tell you people this a hundred times. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
3.1.11  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @3.1    last year
I suspect it is legally viable to conclude Trump engaged in rebellion against the CotUS without even requiring the Jan 6th trial.

Just because you suspect something is so does not make it so. I suspect Hillary to be a space alien but that does not necessarily make her one

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
3.1.12  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @3.1    last year
I suspect it is legally viable to conclude Trump engaged in rebellion against the CotUS without even requiring the Jan 6th trial.

Just because you suspect something is so does not make it so. I suspect Hillary to be a space alien but that does not necessarily make her one

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.13  JohnRussell  replied to  arkpdx @3.1.12    last year

[removed]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.14  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.13    last year

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.15  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @3.1.11    last year

I used the word 'suspect' rather than 'know'.  

Telling us what 'suspect' means is pointless.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.16  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @3.1    last year
I think it would be easy to conclude Trump engaged in rebellion against the CotUS.

How? He isn't charged with insurrection  or rebellion. Those words have specific meanings.   

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.1.17  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.10    last year
you people

The only two informative words in that comment.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.18  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.16    last year

One need not be found legally guilty of these charges for the SecState for each state to act.

Their decisions can be challenged in a court of law.

see @3.1.9

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
4  Nerm_L    last year

That's it.  Completely ignore where the elites stand in today's politics.  Just ignore that Donald Trump is being prosecuted by the elite for crimes against the elite.  Stick your academic elite Republicans where the sun don't shine and chant Kamala-lala-la.  Vote for Biden; Biden defends and protects the elite.

In case no one has noticed, Trump's MAGA supporters don't have a lot of faith in our elite institutions.  An expert is someone that should not be trusted.  So, why should we believe that these elitist arguments made by academic experts are going to change one damned thing?

For Republicans still wedded to faux bourgeois nobility of the elite, it would be wise to focus attention on the candidate for Vice President.  Mike Pence defending the pomp and pageantry of elite privilege has about as much chance as Jeb Bush.   The Republican elite will use any and all dirty tricks to avoid creating a party platform because that would give voice to the stupid, ignorant MAGA crowd.  The best chance for the Republican deadwood is to choose their preferred Vice President and work to remove Trump after he wins the election.  Or settle for a Biden reelection.

 
 
 
Hallux
Professor Principal
4.1  Hallux  replied to  Nerm_L @4    last year
An expert is someone that should not be trusted.

That's a helluva big blanket, surely you meant to say it differently.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
4.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  Hallux @4.1    last year
That's a helluva big blanket, surely you meant to say it differently.

It's intended to express a point of view common among Trump supporters.  Although that point of view also seems present among supporters of Robert Kennedy.  And don't leave out the UFO crowd, although the elite seem to have adopted a pandering position.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
5  Tacos!    last year

There must be due process. These things cannot be adjudicated in the pages of a newspaper.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
5.1  arkpdx  replied to  Tacos! @5    last year
[deleted]
 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
5.2  Sparty On  replied to  Tacos! @5    last year

Bazinga.    Spot on.    

We regularly disagree but we also regularly agree.   Like in this case.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
5.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Tacos! @5    last year

Common sense - good to see especially among the ignorant nasty partisan comments that chase away possible new members to this site.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.3.1  Tessylo  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.3    last year

So true Buzz - I hadn't thought of it that way - who knowingly would want to deal with such taunting trolling and ignorant nonsense practiced by some members.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
5.3.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @5.3.1    last year
such taunting trolling and ignorant nonsense practiced by some members

256

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.3.3  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.3.2    last year

Projection

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
5.3.4  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @5.3.3    last year

[deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @5    last year

The court of law and the court of public opinion are two different things. 

The issue with Trump is his fitness to run for election and hold office. The issue of "innocent until proven guilty" is irrelevant to that. I wish people would stop saying that because he hasnt been convicted yet he's good to go, because it is idiotic. 

Trump is and will be a known traitor to the United States even if he never gets convicted. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
5.4.1  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @5.4    last year
The court of law and the court of public opinion are two different things. 

Yes, they are. You need to think about how each one works.

The court of law is where matters of the Constitution are decided. You want to talk about legal terms like “insurrection” or matters of law like the 14th Amendment? Then the proper venue for adjudication is a court of law.

The only adjudicating done by the court of public opinion happens at the ballot. If you want to cite “fitness for office,” that’s where the matter is settled.

I wish people would stop saying that because he hasn’t been convicted yet he's good to go

I wish you and others would stop ignoring the requirements of law just because you want a certain outcome. Ignoring the Constitution and its protections - like due process - sounds just as un-American to me as anything Trump or his minions might propose.

This country and our system of laws is supposed to stand for something. Real justice has to have a process that applies to all people, or our fancy words mean nothing. I don’t know what you’re fighting for, but it’s not America. You just want what you want and you don’t appear to care how you get it.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6  Sparty On    last year

A court of law may adjudicate in agreement with public opinion but it does not rely solely on public opinion for justice.    Not ever.    Not real justice.

It is suppose to be unbiased by design.    Something the TDS ridden will never be again.    If they ever were in the first place.

 
 

Who is online











400 visitors