The 14th Amendment to the Constitution bans anyone who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the U.S. from holding office.
A Florida lawyer is suing Donald Trump in an attempt to disqualify his current run for president. Lawrence A. Caplan’s Thursday lawsuit claims that the ex-president’s involvement in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot would make him ineligible to run again, thanks to the Constitution’s 14th Amendment—a Civil War-era addition aimed at preventing those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the U.S. from holding office. “Now given that the facts seem to be crystal clear that Trump was involved to some extent in the insurrection that took place on January 6th, the sole remaining question is whether American jurists who swear an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution upon their entry to the bench, will choose to follow the letter of the Constitution in this case,” the lawsuit says, also citing Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia. Legal experts say it’s an uphill battle to argue in court, since the amendment has hardly been exercised in modern history. “Realistically, it’s not a Hail Mary, but it’s just tossing the ball up and hoping it lands in the right place,” Charles Zelden, a professor of history and legal studies at Nova Southeastern University, told the South Florida Sun Sentinel.
archive link to South Florida Sun Sentinel article: https://archive.ph/1BntD
The groups that are calling for Trump to be disqualified are acting like a lynch mob. Think about the end result and how it could be used by nefarious future leaders who want to snuff out their competitors.
The very premise of “blocking Trump from running” is saying let’s give a judge - perhaps only a single judge (!) - authority to tell voters who they can and cannot vote for.
I’ll be the first to say that Trump should be in jail if he’s convicted for his crimes. But I don’t want any court to take away my right to put any name I want on that bllot, for any reason.
There are rules about who can and can’t run. It’s not an open ballot.
These are black and white rules, not easily subject to debate. If you qualify, you qualify.
And if you don’t, you don’t. That’s precisely the point.
14th amendment, section 3. That’s not black and white.
Yes that’s what most of the discussion revolves around, and the idea of who defines what an insurrection is and who’s guilty, because the amendments don’t define this. Some dictionary definitions seem to include minor behavior as mundane as running a protest or making a public statement of disagreement with the current government, which would likely vacuum up any person you’d ever want to vote for.
In the comment you replied to, I was thinking about these constitutional requirements:
-Be a natural-born citizen of the United States -Be at least 35 years old -Have been a resident of the United States for 14 years
Which I think we can agree are either true or false for Amy given candidate and difficult to argue factually. That isn’t true, however, of the 14th amendment concept, which is, in my argument, better left to the voters to decide rather than a small number of judges and lawyers.
I don’t think it’s good to resort to the election to determine a complex legal ruling. It wouldn’t simply be ruling him eligible it not as the case would be in court. It would just make him president if enough people want him. There are many reasons that people pick who they vote for. I would prefer a ruling on the 14th amendment issue to be based only in that and made by people who understand constitutional law.
I understand your reservations about leaving that jn the hands of the judiciary, but for that type of thing I don’t think just letting the election decide is the appropriate course of action.
You can put whatever you want on your ballot. However, states have rules about which names they will print on the ballots as suggested potential votes. Having the legal process keep an enemy of the state off of a bunch of states’ ballots is a precedent I am totally cool with. Though I get what you’re saying because of course republicans will try to get the Democrat nominee disqualified if they think it’s at all possible.
It will be interesting to see how many write-ins he gets if he’s not on the ballot in various states. Or hell, even if he’s not the nominee in the first place.
He led an insurrection. It’s in the constitution that you can’t run for office if you lead an insurrection.
Yes, he probably did, and that alone disqualies him from getting my vote and hopefully the majority too.
But consider that the founding fathers were insurrectionists. Consider that many figures in world history object to the ruling party’s ideas and are labeled insurrectionists because of it. It’s a tool of oppressors.
In fact, some might label any protestor who does a sit in or some other rebellious or obnoxious activity as insurrection. One of the dictionary definitions of insurrection is “The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government.” The constitution of the US doesn’t offer a definition.
In many countries, politicians are suppressed by accusations of insurrection solely because they oppose whoever is in power at the time.
My argument is not that Trump is worthy of the job (he’s not), rather that I want this kind of decision in the hands of the voters, not a handful of lawyers and judges.
This is wonderful rhetoric and I’m glad you said it.
Removed by mod