Apparently none of the legal issues prevent him from becoming president. Opposite to what I believed.
Technically they do not, but it is conceivable he could be President and trying to run the country from a prison cell. We are in uncharted waters.
1 Like
The ones that could preclude him from being President are the 14th Amendment case. If a Federal court, and ultimately the Supreme Court, were to find that he was an insurrectionary, he is disqualified from any office. Maine and Colorado have excluded him from their state ballots. The Colorado Supreme Court has upheld that, it is now going to the Supreme Court.
Quite right, I forgot about that one.
I can see the 14th Amendment case bumping to the Supreme Court and then going in Trumpâs favor. They will probably squash it on some technicality on defining insurrection, then the various states will be defeated in their moves to remove Trump from the ballot.
It will be framed as a triumph for democracy. Let the people decideâŚ
1 Like
Trumpâs arguments are actually surprisingly crap, but I suspect the fact that he has not been found guilty anything that would stand as insurrectionary will be the argument the SC will use. However, that actually creates a remarkable precedent, because they will be striking down a part of the US Constitution. That amendment is absolutely clear that no conviction is necessary. So much for American conservatives hating judicial activism and deferring to the Constitution. If one article can be used as the basis to overturn another article or amendment, the entire paradigm of US constitutional law is potentially altered.
2 Likes
In recent times the identity of the Republican Party is taking a beating.
They like to think of themselves as a Constitutional Party, hold up the book, honor the book, go by the book, interpret the book literally, as originalists, etc.
All well and good⌠until your preferred candidate craps all over the Consitution, and now you need some sleight of hand to pretend otherwise.
Other aspects of the traditional Republican identity are taking a beating too.
Fiscally sound? Yeah right. Many billions added to the debt by Trump. Where is the Tea Party element to complain about that? Not to mention the jobs lost.
Good on law and order? Nope! Letâs storm the castle, kill cops, attack many other police, send our elected officials running for cover, set up a gallows for the VP, etc.
This Republican Party is a sham cult.
Shit on the Constitution.
Shit on financial discipline.
Shit on Jobs.
Shit on law and order.
In love with a wholly unqualified authoritarian who should be in jail.
5 Likes
It really does sound like something from Gibbonâs Decline and Fall
1 Like
If he was convicted of it, yes, he hasnât been convicted, nor has he been charged. Any charges on that subject would not even make it to the courts in time. This is why I think none of the 14th amendment attempts will work. There were several people that were charged with insurrection, only two have been convicted of insurrection (itâs called something else), the rest had those charges dropped and were found guilty on other charges.
There is absolutely no requirement for any conviction. There is no charge involved. if either of those were required, it would have been struck down easily in Colorado.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was put in place explicitly to exclude former Confederates from taking office. Southerners were barred from taking up Senate or House seats despite not being subject to any indvidual proceedings. It is also clear that the enforcement is not judicial in nature, that power is allocated to the House of Representatives.
Trumpâs lawyers arenât even bothering with the spurious no conviction, no charge argument. His main argument is that the President is not actually an officer of the United States for the purposes of the Amendment.
3 Likes
I believe that inevitably institutions become more important than the individuals. There is a point where institutions exploit rather than serve/enable the individuals.
The polarity in the US feels more like exploitation rather than service.
That said, from my point of view, one side is driving that process.
1 Like
Yeah just read that. Went on assumption of guilt which seems the logical way to do things. Strange clause.
It is a political restriction, not a criminal one. The Civil War had just been fought, one side won, and they had no intention of allowing Congress to go back to the status of 1859. It is more akin to the age requirement than any kind of sanction.
It must be highly subjective from a law pov seeing as though some have been thown out while other have not.
Not if you think about why it was created. Lack of criminal consequences for the surviving leaders of the confederacy was a conscious decision taken in the supposed interest of restoring a fractured country. But allowing them to hold office in the government they had tried to overthrow was a step too far, and so the 14th A was brought in specific to that reality. It was therefore assumed at the time of writing that the people it was going to be applied to not only would not have any legal convictions, but would have even been legally charged with any such offenses.
3 Likes
It actually hasnât been used much at all since Reconstruction - I believe the only case was against Berger, an American Socialist, for objecting to the US entry in World War 1. After the war, the objection was lifted - he had had his conviction overturned, and no objection was raised to him joining the House in 1922. I donât believe anyone has ever had one thrown out, precisely because it is a power reserved to the House.
Whatâs that mean âto the houseâ ? Meaning house of reps needs to vote on it?
Yes, though in this case it means the Senate as well.
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.
and Section 5 is:
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
The courts donât really enter into it.
So the claim from his camp is that the presidency doesnât fall under that?
Also how is engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same determined when there is no charge or guilt? Surely itâs now subjective as (to completely simplify the situation) half the population says he said âprotest peacefullyâ, while the other half said âhe didnât do enough to stop violenceâ.
Yes, that seems to be the main line of his defence, bizarrely enough. The rest is rather emotive.
The âhow is it determinedâ maybe the key to a successful defence, but it is clear that Congress has the final say. However, the critical point is that it requires a 2/3rds majority to remove. Trump would not likely be able to obtain that.
1 Like
I dont think the Enforcement clause is particularly relevant to the situation. That says Congress has the authority to remove someone, but this Supreme court case is more based on whether section 3 can be used to keep someone off the ballot, and if so who gets to determine that.
- Does what he did meet the requirements to disqualify him as laid out in Section 3
- States have broad freedom to run federal elections in their states as they deem fit. Does that extend to determining for themselves who is disqualified from office as per section 3?
- Even if they do, does that right go as far as to deny him access to the ballot in their state?
1 Like