14th amendment bars those suborning insurrection or rebellion from POTUS

[NolanVoyd]

coup - a sudden, violent, and unlawful seizure of power from a government.

insurrection - a violent uprising against an authority or government.

Right.

See how niether of those mentions the military?

So can you answer my question?

Here it is again.

Where did you get the idea that a coup needs to involve the military?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Some legal scholars say the Secretary of State for each of the states can make that decision and enforce it by striking Trump from the ballot. 14A Sect. 3 is self-executing.

Since the actual conduct of the elections are under the control of the several states, that means that the several states can determine who is eligible to be on the ballot.

That's Step 1.

However there is a common expectation that that control will be exercised rationally and legally and so a citizen of a state where "Candidate X" has been denied a place on the ballot can bring on an action to obtain a "Writ of Mandamus" that would compel the state official to comply with the law.

That's Step 2.

At that point the courts would determine (after a "hearing" [not a 'trial"] in which both sides would have full opportunity to make their case) whether the state official that had denied "Candidate X" a place on the ballot had complied with the law in excluding "Candidate X" from the ballot. That determination would be made REGARDLESS of any extraneous factors, and be based on both statute and common law (the common law continues in force save and except where specifically overridden by statute law) and could well be made under the court's inherent power as a "Court of Equity" ("equitable remedies" are still available in situations where the statute law does not govern).

That's Step 3.

NOTE - The 14th Amendment does not forbid a person who has been found (whether criminally, civilly, or by act of a legislative body) to have "engaged in insurrection or rebellion, or given aid and comfort (to those who did) from having their name on the ballot, it only precludes them from taking the elected office that they were running for if they obtain a legal plurality of the vote. That would mean that, if the Secretary of State for "Confusiana" decided to allow the name of a convicted insurrectionist to appear on the ballot for (let's say, Senator), there wouldn't be anything that anyone could do about it - it would just mean that they couldn't take their seat in the Senate EVEN IF they got 99% of the votes in "Confusiana" (UNLESS, of course, 2/3rds of the Senators and 2/3rds of the Representatives voted to "remove the disability").

So if someone does this, a lawsuit will likely follow. That's why I said bring on the Supreme Court.

14A Sect. 3 doesn't require that.

True, but facts do.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

coup - a sudden, violent, and unlawful seizure of power from a government.

insurrection - a violent uprising against an authority or government.


as you said - they were protesting because they disagreed with the certification of the 2020 election ----- I saw nowhere at anytime that they wanted to overthrow our Govt or country or start a new Govt or nation or anything that "coup" and "insurrection" is normally associated with

but the words are soundbites from the left that will never be let go of I guess, keep believing what you're told

I refer you to "Self Coup".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Right.

See how niether of those mentions the military?

So can you answer my question?

Here it is again.

Where did you get the idea that a coup needs to involve the military?

Because they were told (by the supporters of the failed one) that it had to?

 

[Absentglare]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/19/politics/donald-trump-fourteenth-amendment-2024-race/index.html

There is increasing discussion, and raising consensus, that the 14th Amendment bars individuals that have supported or been the focal point of insurgent or rebellion activity from seeking Presidential office.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

I think the answer is trivially “yes”, the real question is whether this applies to the guy who just orchestrated a failed coup.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

While it is ambitious on how they lose that ability...I think that the writers thought there would be some common sense.....how wrong they were.. I believe that since it says that 3/4 of Congress can restore those rights...

2/3rds (as was set out in the quoted Amendment).

it requires a simple majority of Congress to remove those rights...

Not set out in the Amendment.

or a court determining that the person engaged in or was responsible for violating that provision of the constitution.

See my earlier "Step 3".

The courts can determine if the refusal to allow ballot access was "properly" done. If the refusal was "properly" done, then the courts can not force the refused candidate to be placed on the ballot. If the refusal was NOT "properly" done, then the courts can order the relevant official to amend the ballots so as to include the refused candidate on the ballots. (Obviously, the final decision would be made by the Supreme Court of the United States of America [which might rule that the refused candidate's name be included on the ballot BUT that the counting of the ballots be deferred pending a determination as to whether or not that candidate was eligible to hold the elected office that they were running for IF they did receive a plurality of the votes and how that determination was to be made].)

IOW the Supreme Court would determine what the proper venue for making that decision was (something which is currently "legislatively lacking".

 

[snakestretcher]

You got this from @Torus34

It’s just more TDS is all.

Anything to attack political opponents.

We’ve seen this all before.

Old people want to live off the system.

How’s inflation treating the diehard Dems these days? Gas?

You're clearly ignorant of the fact that your president, whoever he might be, has little or no control over inflation. That's the job of the federal reserve who may raise or lower interest rates to control inflation, without approval from the legislative or executive branches. As for gas the cost of that is determined by supply and demand and the stock markets. Again nothing any president can control. See, you learned something today. Or maybe not. Probably not.

 

[DCCougar]

it was a big giant mob of people going into the Capitol Building and demanding they be heard....

What was it they wanted to be heard about? "Hang Mike Pence" because he didn't illegally count the false electors' votes like Trump wanted him to, or at least halt the count and send the (already certified) votes back to the swing states for.... what?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I somewhat agree...because I believe it would require it, in the clause if that were true...my comment is more on how it occurs....than on conviction....if there is a conviction though...there is an automatic disqualification without Congress...

What would happen if there was a conviction AND if 2/3rds majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives overrode the disqualification.

How would that overriding take place if the person was denied ballot access?

Although it sounds a bit silly, wouldn't the "correct" procedure be for the person's name to be included on the ballot EVEN THOUGH the person had been "determined" to be ineligible to take the elected office sought IF elected, and then to allow the Congress to hold the votes on whether or not to override the "disqualification"?

How would you resolve the situation where "Candidate A [R]" has been "determined" to be ineligible to take the elected office sought and there is also a "Candidate B [R]" as well as a "Candidate C [D]" running for that elected office if

1. "Candidate A [R]" received 59% of the vote
2. "Candidate B [R]" received 20% of the vote
3. "Candidate C [D]" received 21% of the vote

AND only 65% of the Senate and 65% of the House of Representatives voted to "remove the disqualification" on "Candidate A"?

HINT - It's time to amend the 14th.

 

[Mycroft]

It also says "or given aid to". Has Trump given ANY assistance to ANYONE who has been convicted?

Not that I know of.

 

[Mycroft]

"Giving aid and comfort" can very easily encompass "suborning".

"I think that all real patriots should _[fill in the blank][/b]_, and I will do everything in my power to ensure that they don't suffer for it if they do." is both "giving aid and comforting" as well as "suborning".

Mr. Trump sure is "signalling" that he does "think that all real patriots should _[fill in the blank][/b]_" AND that he "will do everything in [his] power to ensure that they don't suffer for it if they do".

Giving aid and comfort is not the same as suborning. You really should invest in a dictionary.

 

[DCCougar]

cultists is what I'd call people who will do ANYTHING to stop Trump from running in 2024....

LOL, so deluded! You know you're in a cult when you are devoted to excusing a self-appointed leader like Trump, who excessively controls his cult members, requiring unwavering devotion to a set of beliefs. "Belief No. 1" is that the cult leader is the only one you can trust, and you believe he gives you the truth much more than anyone else, including family and friends, conservative media, even your church leaders. Jim Jones was a cult leader. I would have argued against him attaining the presidentcy, too.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

It does stop a person guilty of insurrection from being President (or Vice President, or Senator, or Congressman). But it does not say anything about running for President.

Indeed.

And since the prohibition can only be removed AFTER the person has obtained a plurality in the election that they are running for office in, then it follows logically (because of the crappy wording of the statute) that they MUST be allowed on the ballot - otherwise they have no standing to apply to have a prohibition that they are not subject to removed as they are NOT seeking to take any elected office.

The closest parallel that I can think of (without bothering to do any further research [which I'm too lazy to do]) would be that of Louis Riel

​

who was refused/expelled from his seat in the Canadian parliament twice (there was a warrant out for his arrest for an act of treason ["The Red River Rebellion"] a charge for which he was never tried). He was, however later charged with a different act of treason ("The Northwest Rebellion"), convicted, and executed (although [much] later pardoned). ASIDE - With respect to the later charge, M. Riel was loony as a jay bird at the time of the offence (and had been for some time [although he appears to have been fairly successful, in the interim between "The Red River Rebellion" and "The Northwest Rebellion", in teaching school at the St. Peter's Jesuit mission in the Sun River district of Montana]).

NOTE - The US has also honored people who engaged in armed rebellion against the national government on its postage stamps

​

but never one who was actually charged, tried, and convicted of treason.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Giving aid and comfort is not the same as suborning. You really should invest in a dictionary.

I never said that they were identical, I said that "giving aid and comfort" could well encompass "suborning".

To, hopefully (albeit in anticipation of it being useless) the term "dog" can encompass the term "beagle" but that does not mean that the term "dogs" and the term "beagles" are identical nor that all "dogs" are "beagles".

You really should invest in a copy of "Fowler's Modern English Usage" (as well as having your parents apply for a refund on the amount that they paid in school taxes).

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Deflection. 1-6 was a first of its kind. No comparison can be made to anything else. Never before has a sitting president attempted to overturn an election.

Not quite. However "Never before has a <American> sitting president attempted to overturn an election.".

In other countries sitting presidents have attempted to overturn elections fairly frequently. The general terms used to describe those countries in the popular American press is "S***hole Countries", "Third World Countries" and "Dictatorships".

 

[hecatmoggie]

Where did you get the idea that a coup needs to involve the military?

call it a "soft" coup or a "self" coup then

List of coups and coup attempts - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A coup d'état, often abbreviated to coup, is the overthrow of a lawful government through illegal means. If force or violence are not involved, such an event is sometimes called a soft or bloodless coup. In another variation, a ruler who came to power through legal means may try to stay in power through illegal means, thus preventing the next legal ruler from taking power. These events are called self coups

doesn't matter though - Trump wasn't trying to overthrow the Govt and he thought (and millions of his voters thought) that he absolutely won the 2020 election



14th doesn't apply to Trump - but ya'll are scared to death he'll be running and win in 2024 - aren't ya ?

 

[hecatmoggie]

I refer you to "Self Coup".

then lets all call it that - which again really doesn't apply however its as close to what Democrats are accusing as anything

but this is the first time I've heard of "self coup" and nobody else has used those words either

 

[hecatmoggie]

LOL, so deluded! You know you're in a cult when you are devoted to excusing a self-appointed leader like Trump, who excessively controls his cult members, requiring unwavering devotion to a set of beliefs. "Belief No. 1" is that the cult leader is the only one you can trust, and you believe he gives you the truth much more than anyone else, including family and friends, conservative media, even your church leaders. Jim Jones was a cult leader. I would have argued against him attaining the presidentcy, too.

I don't support Trump today - so none of that applies to me

but the bolded is exactly the left - they trust Joe Biden and question nothing. Biden voters think everything is peachy, fantastic, he's awesome .... they believe anything that comes from the White House

am I right ?

 

[snakestretcher]

per definitions Jan 6th wasn't insurrection/govt upheaval etc

sorry - i know left wants to use the words to make it sound like something it wasn't but truth remains

Argue with the DoJ. I'll hazard a guess and suggest they know a hell of a lot more about Jan 6 attempted insurrection and applying the law than you.

 

[NolanVoyd]

call it a "soft" coup or a "self" coup then

Nope.

The term coup does not require a military component.

the definition of the term coup does not even mention the military.

Again, where did you get the idea that a coup must have military involvement?

[

doesn't matter though - Trump wasn't trying to overthrow the Govt and he thought (and millions of his voters thought) that he absolutely won the 2020 election

There is a constitutional process to dispute elections.

Trump tried that. Couldnt produce evidence. Lost 60 some cases.

Instead of accepting that and conceding he then acted illegally to prevent the election from being certified.

That is the part that was an attempted coup.

 

[RedFishBlueFish]

Not without due process. You can’t just accuse a candidate of such and erase them from the ballot.

People went down that road to try to prevent MTG from being elected and it led to nowhere.

Yeah, because that was in Georgia and was decided by a state administrative law judge.

Let's see what happens when a Secretary of State from a blue state rules to ban Trump from the ballot before we draw a conclusion from MTG and Georgia.

 

[Mycroft]

I never said that they were identical, I said that "giving aid and comfort" could well encompass "suborning".

To, hopefully (albeit in anticipation of it being useless) the term "dog" can encompass the term "beagle" but that does not mean that the term "dogs" and the term "beagles" are identical nor that all "dogs" are "beagles".

You really should invest in a copy of "Fowler's Modern English Usage" (as well as having your parents apply for a refund on the amount that they paid in school taxes).

You really need to look up the definition of "suborn". It doesn't mean what you want to think it means.

Bye.

 

[hecatmoggie]

Argue with the DoJ. I'll hazard a guess and suggest they know a hell of a lot more about Jan 6 attempted insurrection and applying the law than you.

but can't find out who left a bag of white powder in the White House LOL

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

then lets all call it that - which again really doesn't apply however its as close to what Democrats are accusing as anything

but this is the first time I've heard of "self coup" and nobody else has used those words either

It's not my fault if your education in politics is deficient.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

You really need to look up the definition of "suborn". It doesn't mean what you want to think it means.

Bye.

SUBORN : to induce secretly to do an unlawful thing
(emphasis added)

SUBORN : to bribe or induce (someone) unlawfully or secretly to perform some misdeed or to commit a crime
(emphasis added)

SUBORN : to persuade (someone) to do something illegal
Get a dictionary.