Hearings began this week on whether the 14th Amendment disqualifies Donald Trump from running for president in 2024 because of his actions around the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
On Monday morning in Denver, a historic five-day evidentiary hearing began for a lawsuit filed against Trump by six Republican and unaffiliated Colorado voters represented by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
A similar hearing is set for Thursday in Minneapolis.
CREW President Noah Bookbinder has said that his organization brought its suit in Colorado because “it is necessary to defend our republic both today and in the future.” The group’s complaint accuses Trump of inciting and aiding the mob at the Capitol two years ago, which he denies. He was impeached on similar charges but acquitted by Republicans in the Senate.
Be careful what you wish for. You shouldn’t be able to disqualify someone who hasn’t been convicted yet. Otherwise this will be weaponized, and each side will start using it to remove people from ballots using frivolous lawsuits.
Trump performed a failed coup, I’m okay with going after others that perform coups.
There’s no conviction so we can’t legally says he’s culpable.
The 14th says nothing about a conviction being necessary.
It’s a bit sticky. But yeah, I’d find him in violation of the 14th in 1.433 seconds flat.
Doesn’t matter. Ordinary soldiers for the Confederate army were never convicted either but they were banned regardless.
Yep! And precedent seems like it should weigh heavily. But “no conviction” is the obvious legal road to follow. And his lawyers will follow that road.
Don’t they have to show that one is needed? The Constitution doesn’t say one is.
The 14th shouldn’t need to say a conviction is necessary. It should be obvious a conviction is necessary, otherwise you could derail anyone running for President just by accusing them of sedition then claiming the 14th.
The part of the 14th amendment that would bar someone from being president for engaging in insurrection is worded kind of similarly to article II where it lays out qualifications for president
Compare that to
You don’t need to be convicted of not being a natural-born citizen to be barred from being president, and in fact you can’t, it’s not a crime. And neither do you need to be convicted of insurrection. These clauses in the Constitution stand on their own.
So a conviction for something isn’t necessary for someone to be barred from office for that thing.
The Constitution could just as easily say “No person shall be president who has worn socks with sandals.” That doesn’t mean wearing socks with sandals is illegal, just that you can’t be president if you’ve done it. You can’t be convicted of it because it’s not a crime (fashion crimes aren’t actually crimes.)
Of course if it was illegal, a conviction or lackthereof could certainly be brought up to support or oppose any challenge to whether someone is qualified, and while a conviction would certainly be pretty damn compelling evidence, it still may not necessarily make or break the argument in either direction because we live in a world of legal loopholes, weird precedents, and government officials exercising their discretion however they see fit.
Fair point! But there’s a burden of proof that, to my knowledge, hasn’t been tested.
Except, that’s not what the constitution says.
None of the people disbarred from office by the 14th were ever convicted of anything.
The whole point of the 14th amendment is that it is self-executing. No conviction is necessary.
And everyone who has sworn an oath (or otherwise has a duty) to uphold the constitution must abide by it.
You might find that unreasonable, but if so, then you must amend the constitution to remove the 14th, otherwise it remains the Supreme law of the land.
Trump probably unironically believes he has tried to uphold the constitution. Ignorance of the law is only a crime for plebs like you and I, not police or presidents.
If you think there is no actual evidence a court can review, besides the outputs of a different court… Then I don’t think you get it.
If FL decides to kick Biden off the ballot, they will have to defend that decision in court. What evidence would they provide to support the accusation??
Are you saying he had no involvement in it? If someone, Republican or Democrat was involved in a coup I think it is fair to not give them chance to do it again. Frankly some congressmen are also breaking this amendment, one is even a speaker.
The overwhelming majority of people who have been disqualified under the 14th amendment were never charged with a crime. That’s simply not how it works.
I don’t know why you’re being downvoted. This absolutely will be weaponized, same way impeachment is being weaponized now.
Weaponized against people who break the oath to defend the constitution? Good. Trump and all the people part of the failed coup should be removed from office. They are text book traitors.
I’m inclined to agree. It’s obvious that Trump is guilty of attempting a coup, however he has not yet been legally convicted of that.
People, please stop downvoting the above comment because you don’t like Trump. I wish all of the world’s ills on Trump, but that doesn’t make reddig33 wrong. Nobody should be able to be stripped of their rights without a conviction. Our justice system works achingly slow - especially when this situation is without precedent.
Qualification for an elected office is not a right. There are other constitutional requirements which must be met in order to be qualified to run for office. For President, the person must be at least 35 years of age, for example.
Another qualification is that you have not engaged in insurrection or rebellion, or given aid or comfort tp the enemies of the United States, after having taken an oath as an elected official to support the Constitution.
Disqualification from office is not punishment for a crime.
“Another qualification is that you have not engaged in insurrection or rebellion, or given aid or comfort tp the enemies of the United States, after having taken an oath as an elected official to support the Constitution.”
This has to be proven. Obviously it happened, but from a legal standpoint, that has not yet been proven in court.
Can you show me what part of Amendment 14, Section Three, states that a conviction is required?
deleted by creator
Can you show me where it doesn’t?
The fact is that this is untested legal grounds, which is why it’s headed for court in multiple venues. As usual, the Constitution is vague and open to interpretation. I personally hope he is barred from running, but I stand firm that nobody should ever be stripped of any rights without a conviction first. Doing otherwise is a scary precedent.
Here’s where it’s not stated:
Amendment 14, Section Three:
It’s not untested legal ground. Many Confederates were disqualified from office on this basis, some were removed from office. There is precedent. Edit: There was a county office holder in … AZ? NM? I forget – who was essentially removed from the ballot on this basis. The judge found that Jan 6 was an “insurrection” and that he had “engaged in” it, but the election happened before any further action was taken, and the guy lost anyway, so it was moot.
The Sweep and Force of Section Three is worth a read.
Edit: The reason it’s going to court in multiple venues is because it is the job of the Secretary of State for each state to determine who is and is not qualified to be elected. As such, it would be reasonable for a Secretary of State to disqualify Trump (at least) from the ballot, after which, Trump would file suit to reverse that. In the cases going on now, parties with standing are filing suit to compel the Secretary of State to perform the duty of their office.
Here is Section 3 (with emphasis added):
I emphasized where it defines who is barred from office and doesn’t state a conviction is required.
I wasn’t born in US, so I can’t be president, where’s my conviction?
BTW: 14 amendment applies to people who were in the government, and broke their oath. It is basically enforcing it and preventing those people from being part of the government that they betrayed. There’s even a clause where house and senate can vote 2/3 to reinstate such person.
I think you forget that he was impeached for it.
No action was taken because his party controlled that, but he was nevertheless impeached.
And he won’t be. The J6 indictment accuses him taking advantage of it, not starting it. The likely reason why Jack Smith did that was because Trump would start appeal that because of impeachment that’s a double jeopardy and delay everything further.
If someone involved in insurrection while being in the office they should not have privilege of running again.