• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

14th Amendment

Rexedgar

Yo-Semite!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
54,573
Reaction score
42,041
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What do the scholars think? Does the application of the 14 Amendment need a legal charge or conviction to be enforced? The case is coming in front of a court this Friday. I wonder what the judge is thinking?

Here are two links relative to my post:


Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Talk about a run on sentence. “….except for participation in rebellion, or other crime………”

Does “rebellion“ stand alone or is it grouped in with “other crime,” as in there needs to be a legal charge?

 

Gateman_Wen

Official disruptive influence
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
21,669
Reaction score
23,734
Location
Middle of it all
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
What do the scholars think? Does the application of the 14 Amendment need a legal charge or conviction to be enforced? The case is coming in front of a court this Friday. I wonder what the judge is thinking?

Here are two links relative to my post:


Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Talk about a run on sentence. “….except for participation in rebellion, or other crime………”

Does “rebellion“ stand alone or is it grouped in with “other crime,” as in there needs to be a legal charge?

It clearly stands alone. "Or" meaning what it does.
 

Bullseye

All Lives Matter or No Lives Matter
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
44,411
Reaction score
15,295
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
What do the scholars think? Does the application of the 14 Amendment need a legal charge or conviction to be enforced? The case is coming in front of a court this Friday. I wonder what the judge is thinking?

Here are two links relative to my post:


Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Talk about a run on sentence. “….except for participation in rebellion, or other crime………”

Does “rebellion“ stand alone or is it grouped in with “other crime,” as in there needs to be a legal charge?

Yet another Kangaroo Court convened by the loony left.
 

Rexedgar

Yo-Semite!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
54,573
Reaction score
42,041
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

Bullseye

All Lives Matter or No Lives Matter
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
44,411
Reaction score
15,295
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Thanks for a well thought out response…….
It was. Loonies have been tossing around this 14th amendment idiocy for several months. Mostly wishful thinking on the left; desperation actually. Really sad.
 

Rexedgar

Yo-Semite!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
54,573
Reaction score
42,041
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It clearly stands alone. "Or" meaning what it does.
What about “due process?”


Edit: reading further the 3rd section states that there must be a 2/3 vote in each chamber to “remove such liability.”
 

btthegreat

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2018
Messages
6,098
Reaction score
3,699
Location
Lebanon Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
there are two ways to go about this,
What about “due process?”


Edit: reading further the 3rd section states that there must be a 2/3 vote in each chamber to “remove such liability.”
But the House of Representatives or the Senate is not constrained by this amendment so they can give SCOTUS the finger. They can each on their own exploit the language in Article 1, section 5, clause 2 and ditch that 2/3rds of both bodies language, to which you refer in the 14th and only worry about getting that 2/3 of their own body. " Each House [of Congress] may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member."

That means that the House Ethics Committee or Select Committee on Ethics in the Senate gets the ball rolling
"Rule XI (Procedures of committees and unfinished business) of the Rules of the House of Representatives states that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct can investigate allegations that a Member violated "any law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to the conduct of such Member ... in the performance of his duties or the discharge of his responsibilities". That language is much broader as well. Still does anyone think that you can get 2/3rds of these hyperpartisan bodies to agree to oust anyone even if they personally planted a bomb under Speaker Pelosi or Vice President Pence desk.

So far 15 Senators have been expelled and 5 House members for a total of 20, of which 17 were expelled during and directly after the civil war.
 

Gateman_Wen

Official disruptive influence
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
21,669
Reaction score
23,734
Location
Middle of it all
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
What about “due process?”


Edit: reading further the 3rd section states that there must be a 2/3 vote in each chamber to “remove such liability.”
due process is under way as we speak.
 

Rich2018

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2018
Messages
51,664
Reaction score
4,902
Location
Norcross, Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Talk about a run on sentence. “….except for participation in rebellion, or other crime………”

Whoever writes constitutional amendments, it's certainly not anyone with any legal training.
 

Roadvirus

Heading North
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2014
Messages
35,964
Reaction score
23,702
Location
Tennessee, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

Doug64

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 13, 2022
Messages
1,390
Reaction score
407
Political Leaning
Conservative
Does “rebellion“ stand alone or is it grouped in with “other crime,” as in there needs to be a legal charge?
First, you’re using the wrong clause, that one deals with the number of people counted in the census for purposes of determining the number of representatives in Congress, not whether individuals can run. The clause you actually want is the next one:

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.​

So yes, those that “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [Constitution of the United States], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” are essentially banned from serving in both the federal and state governments, but @Rexedgar is correct, I suspect the Court is going to find that some method of due process determining that such rebellion or aid has taken place (most likely being found guilty by some form of legal tribunal) before individuals can be banned from serving. And no, @Gateman_Wen, due process isn’t taking place, but rather determining if due process is necessary and, possibly, what form it should take.

But the House of Representatives or the Senate is not constrained by this amendment so they can give SCOTUS the finger. They can each on their own exploit the language in Article 1, section 5, clause 2 and ditch that 2/3rds of both bodies language, to which you refer in the 14th and only worry about getting that 2/3 of their own body. " Each House [of Congress] may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member."
This is true, both the Senate and the House can expel or refuse to seat members by a 2/3rds vote. But that is after the election, neither body can forbid someone to run.
 

Doug64

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 13, 2022
Messages
1,390
Reaction score
407
Political Leaning
Conservative
Another issue, the Amnesty Act of 1872:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each house concurring therein), that all political disabilities imposed by the third section of the fourteenth article of amendments of the Constitution of the United States are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever, except Senators and Representatives of the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military, and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States.​

At least one judge has ruled that "all persons whomsoever" means exactly what it says, and since the members running for Congress weren't from the 36th or 37th Congresses the amnesty covers them. Though personally I find that a bit of a stretch, I'm not sure an amnesty can be issued for acts that haven't been committed yet.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
93,518
Reaction score
56,624
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
What do the scholars think? Does the application of the 14 Amendment need a legal charge or conviction to be enforced? The case is coming in front of a court this Friday. I wonder what the judge is thinking?

Here are two links relative to my post:


Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Talk about a run on sentence. “….except for participation in rebellion, or other crime………”

Does “rebellion“ stand alone or is it grouped in with “other crime,” as in there needs to be a legal charge?


She’s not male - kick her out. ;)
 

Rexedgar

Yo-Semite!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
54,573
Reaction score
42,041
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

Rich2018

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2018
Messages
51,664
Reaction score
4,902
Location
Norcross, Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
She’s not male - kick her out. ;)

The Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship and equal civil and legal rights to African Americans and enslaved people who had been emancipated after the Civil War regardless of age or sex.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
93,518
Reaction score
56,624
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship and equal civil and legal rights to African Americans and enslaved people who had been emancipated after the Civil War regardless of age or sex.

The 14A did more than that, thus this thread.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

 

mrjurrs

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 22, 2019
Messages
29,262
Reaction score
16,149
Location
The Bay
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Another issue, the Amnesty Act of 1872:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each house concurring therein), that all political disabilities imposed by the third section of the fourteenth article of amendments of the Constitution of the United States are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever, except Senators and Representatives of the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military, and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States.​

At least one judge has ruled that "all persons whomsoever" means exactly what it says, and since the members running for Congress weren't from the 36th or 37th Congresses the amnesty covers them. Though personally I find that a bit of a stretch, I'm not sure an amnesty can be issued for acts that haven't been committed yet.
I couldn't find any cases that dealt with the Amnesty Act and imo, the removed liabilities resulting from the act point backward, not to future acts.
 

Doug64

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 13, 2022
Messages
1,390
Reaction score
407
Political Leaning
Conservative
I couldn't find any cases that dealt with the Amnesty Act and imo, the removed liabilities resulting from the act point backward, not to future acts.
As I said, I tend to agree--the idea of anyone, whether a chief executive or a legislature, being able to grant amnesty before the acts are even committed gives me the willies.
 

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
94,926
Reaction score
32,608
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
What do the scholars think? Does the application of the 14 Amendment need a legal charge or conviction to be enforced? The case is coming in front of a court this Friday. I wonder what the judge is thinking?

Here are two links relative to my post:


Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Talk about a run on sentence. “….except for participation in rebellion, or other crime………”

Does “rebellion“ stand alone or is it grouped in with “other crime,” as in there needs to be a legal charge?

She can be censured and voted out.

Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
 
Top Bottom