Happy Tuesday to TAT readers, Well, after a few days off to spend time with family, grandkids and great niece and nephew, I am back in the saddle, so to speak. The news this fine Tuesday is coming at us fast and furiously, from a wide variety of sectors.
I’m fairly sure Trump is disqualified to hold that office or any other federal office due to the 14th Amendment prohibition on those who have assisted or given comfort to enemies of the USA engaged in insurrection.
And the Republicans majority is far too slim to make that happen anyway seems to me. Lots of blue state Republicans that would get clobbered for it
Ed, there was a time when I would have agreed with you. At the moment and with our current SCOTUS, hellbent on overturning established law and the founding principles that our founders, especially Madison established, I am not as confident that SCOTUS will agree with you or I.
Interesting opinion on the 14th Amendment but so far unproven by the facts in evidence and unsupported by any court findings. It does make grist for fun conversations however.
Oct 4, 2023·edited Oct 4, 2023Liked by Paul Cobaugh
Thanks for the response, but I’m not sure what you mean by unsupported by court findings.
Many of those convicted for sedition explicitly testified in court they believed they carried out the President’s bidding as they attacked our Capitol building. The President had the duty to act to protect Congress. He didn’t. He could have stopped the attack with a tweet. He didn’t. As our Congress was under attack by his supporters. This is self evident.
The Constitution states also that foreign born citizens are unable to run for President. We do not need to take anyone to court to establish such, nor did anyone following the Civil War as they executed the 14th amendment originally.
There is an excellent piece of legal analysis written by Federalist Society legal experts using conservative originalist legal analysis. It can be read here and agrees with my positions. As far as I’m concerned, this prohibition is clear as day. The Constitution is not optional on this any more than it is about foreign born or too-young candidates.
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.
As an aside, yes, there is rock solid evidence, still to be made public regarding Trump's heading of the conspiracy theories/ big lie along with those planners and operational commanders of January 6th. This armed insurrection of January 6th, was strategized, planned and executed based on months of effort, some in conjunction with a foreign power. Still, MAGA and those whose political identity as Republicans, are incapable of absorbing facts and of course, the same goes for critical thinking about facts. This is a product of extended NW/ Narrative Warfare over more than two decades. The truth about this would be equally shocking to Americans as the JFK assassination truths.
My friend, please describe this "twilight zone" for us. Surely, you don't believe that trump (intentionally not capitalized) should ever serve in any government of the United States, ever again... do you?
Since we are now in the Twilight Zone of American politics, here is a novel idea:
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4237172-texas-republican-will-nominate-trump-for-speaker-of-the-house/?utm_content=buffere7c8a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkedin.com&utm_campaign=buffer
There is precedent for this: John Quincy Adams served in the House of Representatives from 1831 to 1848 after leaving the White House.
I’m fairly sure Trump is disqualified to hold that office or any other federal office due to the 14th Amendment prohibition on those who have assisted or given comfort to enemies of the USA engaged in insurrection.
And the Republicans majority is far too slim to make that happen anyway seems to me. Lots of blue state Republicans that would get clobbered for it
Ed, there was a time when I would have agreed with you. At the moment and with our current SCOTUS, hellbent on overturning established law and the founding principles that our founders, especially Madison established, I am not as confident that SCOTUS will agree with you or I.
Interesting opinion on the 14th Amendment but so far unproven by the facts in evidence and unsupported by any court findings. It does make grist for fun conversations however.
Thanks for the response, but I’m not sure what you mean by unsupported by court findings.
Many of those convicted for sedition explicitly testified in court they believed they carried out the President’s bidding as they attacked our Capitol building. The President had the duty to act to protect Congress. He didn’t. He could have stopped the attack with a tweet. He didn’t. As our Congress was under attack by his supporters. This is self evident.
The Constitution states also that foreign born citizens are unable to run for President. We do not need to take anyone to court to establish such, nor did anyone following the Civil War as they executed the 14th amendment originally.
There is an excellent piece of legal analysis written by Federalist Society legal experts using conservative originalist legal analysis. It can be read here and agrees with my positions. As far as I’m concerned, this prohibition is clear as day. The Constitution is not optional on this any more than it is about foreign born or too-young candidates.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751
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.
Well presented Ed.
Thank you.
As an aside, yes, there is rock solid evidence, still to be made public regarding Trump's heading of the conspiracy theories/ big lie along with those planners and operational commanders of January 6th. This armed insurrection of January 6th, was strategized, planned and executed based on months of effort, some in conjunction with a foreign power. Still, MAGA and those whose political identity as Republicans, are incapable of absorbing facts and of course, the same goes for critical thinking about facts. This is a product of extended NW/ Narrative Warfare over more than two decades. The truth about this would be equally shocking to Americans as the JFK assassination truths.
Doc, which "facts in evidence do you refer to?"
My friend, please describe this "twilight zone" for us. Surely, you don't believe that trump (intentionally not capitalized) should ever serve in any government of the United States, ever again... do you?