• 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!

Jim Jordan Should Be Disqualified From Ballot Over Jan. 6 - 14th Amendment, Sec 3

Should Jim Jordan be DISQUALIFIED from the ballot based on the 14th Amendment?


  • Total voters
    34
Gawd American justice is such a mess.

I hope they have been busy since day one but honest, I think this situation so unique that Garland has been very conflicted on what actions to take.

I pray I am wrong.
 
Yes and that is the issue at hand, you want to punish someone based on alleged violations
Based on violations caught on camera and pretty blatant conduct.
 
It's not a question whether or not Rep Jordan has been seditious towards our US Government but what legal/legit actions are now needed to seal the deal based on his alleged violation(s) and the 14th Amendment?



View attachment 67375860
Hometown Stations (WLIO) in Lima, Ohio, reported on Saturday that Democratic demonstrators gathered outside Jordan's office and demanded he be removed from the ballot over his actions related to January 6. They argued that Ohio's Secretary of State Frank LaRose, a Republican, can remove the GOP congressman from the ballot—citing the 14th Amendment, Section 3.

"Frank LaRose can disqualify him from being on the ballot," Taft Mangas, an organizer of the anti-Jordan rally, told the local news channel. "He needs to take a look at this and do what is right and make sure that the people that are running for office are actually qualified to run for office. That they are legitimately allowed to run for office."




The 14th Amendment, Section 3 states:

"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."

No. Representative Jordan would need to be convicted of a crime related to such actions as described in the Fourteenth Amendment in order to be disqualified. Otherwise a Secretary of State would have the ability remove any politician he did not like from the Ballot on the basis that they "engaged in rebellion" or "gave aid or comfort" to our nation's enemies. The Fourteenth Amendment did not make Secretaries of States the triers of fact in such matters.
 
He participated in and promoted it.
In your mind, yes. The article on constitutional law uses the word theoretically and adds this, However, how disqualification works under the 14th Amendment has never been clear. Then there was this:

Under Sections 3 and 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress could bar someone from holding office. But unlike an impeachment conviction, that decision could be overturned by the courts. Most importantly, under the 14th Amendment, disqualification requires only a simple majority vote, not the two-thirds vote needed to convict during an impeachment trial.

https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment14/annotation15.html

No one knows how the 14th amendment would work or apply. If tried, there probably would be lawsuits all the way to the SCOTUS to determine if the 14th applied or not. Congress keeps coming up in the article, now congress could bar Jordon via a simple majority vote. That’s congress, not you nor I. Can a state use the 14th amendment to bar someone from running, again that’s dicey? One thing for sure, this is all unchartered territory using a portion of an amendment that was originally intended to apply only to those who served the confederacy.

I would think someone being convicted in a court of law, either state or federal, then yes. Other than that, congress must act. But who knows? Not even constitutional lawyers know. Never been tried.
 
Yes and that is the issue at hand, you want to punish someone based on alleged violations
How about I allegedly wish to see him face legal ramifications for his alleged seditious actions as our US Rep? :)
 
1) The 14th Amendment has that phrase only to keep former Confederates from running for office. It has no modern relevance.
2) The riot on Jan. 6th was not an insurrection.
3) Why are some people so intent on punishing people involved in the Jan. 6th riot? President Lincoln wasn't so interested in punishing those involved in the American Civil War.

^ This is what condoning an insurrection looks like. Our democracy was under assault, and some people seem to be okay with that. 🤷‍♂️
 
No. Representative Jordan would need to be convicted of a crime related to such actions as described in the Fourteenth Amendment in order to be disqualified. Otherwise a Secretary of State would have the ability remove any politician he did not like from the Ballot on the basis that they "engaged in rebellion" or "gave aid or comfort" to our nation's enemies.
Again, it's up to the 1/6 Committee and our DOJ to get enough on the big mouth turd blossom before tagging him for violating the 14th Amendment. For the most part, It will be a stretch to lay a legal finger on a Trumpian asswipe such as Jordan. imo. Apparently, a retired judge gave her two cents of an opinion and felt that as long as he keeps his yap shut, he'll get away with it. That retired judge is Ellen Connally of the Cleveland Municipal Court.


In the final analysis, what he did and said on or about January 6 could have long term implications for him and his political future. While his conduct will win great support among those in the Trump base, the same acts could be used as a tool to put nails in his political coffin or, alternatively, cost him a great deal of money to defend himself against legal attacks on his qualifications to hold office. The tool in question is a largely overlooked section of the 14thAmendment to the United States Constitution, written in 1868 by another Ohio Republican Congressman, John Bingham.

In the wake of the Civil War, members of congress and the public were concerned about former Confederates returning to public office on both the state and federal level. As a result, Bingham, a staunch abolitionist and supporter of Abraham Lincoln, who by all accounts wrote most of the 14th Amendment, added a provision that would disqualify anyone from holding office who had taken an oath to support the Constitution and subsequently engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States or gave aid or comfort to its enemies




Clearly, as a congressman, Jordan has taken an oath to support the Constitution. But once past that hurdle, the question is whether his conduct amounted to participating in an insurrection or rebellion. It can be argued that Jordan participated in planning to prevent the duly elected president from assuming office and thereby attempted to impede the orderly transfer of government, which could be considered insurrection. The question will come down to what did they did to impede the legal process of certifying the election and what was their involvement in or instigation of the rioters. It should be added that Jordan joined 47 other congressman who voted not to certify the election of Joe Biden to the office of the presidency.
 
Nothing says Democracy like keeping someone's name off the ballot
Nothing says democracy like trying to prevent the winner of presidential election from being seated and keeping the loser in power.

Anti democratic coup attempt. His participation, when established, should be disqualifying.
 
^ This is what condoning an insurrection looks like. Our democracy was under assault, and some people seem to be okay with that. 🤷‍♂️
And this is why lying about what someone else has posted looks like.
 
Nothing says democracy like trying to prevent the winner of presidential election from being seated and keeping the loser in power.

Anti democratic coup attempt. His participation, when established, should be disqualifying.
At the time of the Jan. 6th riot, it had not been proven without a doubt that Biden had won the election.
 
And this is why lying about what someone else has posted looks like.
His post describes yours accurately. Maybe you don't communicate effectively. If that is not what you meant you should try again.
 
And this is why lying about what someone else has posted looks like.

You further excuse 1/06 by saying this:

At the time of the Jan. 6th riot, it had not been proven without a doubt that Biden had won the election.

That is an example of the 1/06 insurrectionists' rhetoric. Stop parroting it.
 
At the time of the Jan. 6th riot, it had not been proven without a doubt that Biden had won the election.
Yes it had.

And all legal avenues of redress had been exhausted.

Any patriot would have conceded when he failed at every avenue of legal redress possible.

Trump and Trumps supporters are not patriots.
 
Yes it had.

And all legal avenues of redress had been exhausted.

Any patriot would have conceded when he failed at every avenue of legal redress possible.

Trump and Trumps supporters are not patriots.
I never said they were patriots.

Remember, I harshly condemned the Jan. 6th riot from the moment it took place.
 
I never said they were patriots.

Remember, I harshly condemned the Jan. 6th riot from the moment it took place.
You said on Jan. 6th, "it had not been proven without a doubt that Biden had won the election."

Yes it had.

And all legal avenues of redress had been exhausted.
 
Anyone voting to reject the results of the election, should be barred from public office for life.
It’s allowed to do that under federal law, so basically you want to bar someone from public office for doing what the law allows.
 
Many Democrats did the same in 2016. It is the right of a Congressman to vote against the election results in whichever state(s) they choose. That's not a crime. It's why they have the vote in the first place.
It’s allowed under the Electoral Count Act, which should be amended to exclude any votes by Congress to certify the election. The states have already done that and the Constitution doesn’t require it. Let Congress count the votes and that should be the end of their responsibility.

Of course, this excludes the vote in the House should no clear winner be determined by the counting of the electoral votes.
 
In your mind, yes. The article on constitutional law uses the word theoretically and adds this, However, how disqualification works under the 14th Amendment has never been clear. Then there was this:

Under Sections 3 and 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress could bar someone from holding office. But unlike an impeachment conviction, that decision could be overturned by the courts. Most importantly, under the 14th Amendment, disqualification requires only a simple majority vote, not the two-thirds vote needed to convict during an impeachment trial.

https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment14/annotation15.html

No one knows how the 14th amendment would work or apply. If tried, there probably would be lawsuits all the way to the SCOTUS to determine if the 14th applied or not. Congress keeps coming up in the article, now congress could bar Jordon via a simple majority vote. That’s congress, not you nor I. Can a state use the 14th amendment to bar someone from running, again that’s dicey? One thing for sure, this is all unchartered territory using a portion of an amendment that was originally intended to apply only to those who served the confederacy.

I would think someone being convicted in a court of law, either state or federal, then yes. Other than that, congress must act. But who knows? Not even constitutional lawyers know. Never been tried.
Its not just in my mind. Liz Cheney also seems to agree. Why does everything have to be neutral to you?
 
Its not just in my mind. Liz Cheney also seems to agree. Why does everything have to be neutral to you?
Neutral to me and neutral to other swing voters. Fact is you can't just say Jordan or anyone else participated in insurrection without proof or conviction either in a court of law or by a vote of congress. Well, you can say Jordan did, but that holds no water legally or constitutional wise.

So how do people look at 6 Jan these days, a partisan affair with minds made up according to partisanship?

6. Which of the following is closest to your point of view on the January 6, 2021 assault on the U.S.

Capitol building?

Total Democrat Republican Independent

The Jan. 6th events were an attempted coup or insurrection Total 32% Democrat 57% Republican 10% Independent 26%

The Jan. 6th events were a riot that got out of control Total 28% Democrat 20% Republican 38% Independent 32%

The Jan. 6th events were a reasonable protest Total 6% Democrat 4% Republican 9% Independent4%

The Jan. 6th events were carried out by opponents of Donald Trump, including Antifa and government agents Total 17% Democrat 8% Republican 30% Independent 12%

Don’t know Total 18% Democrat 11% Republican 13% Independent 26%

https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2021-12/Topline_NPR_Jan6_2.pdf

As you can see 57% of Democrats view 6 Jan as an insurrection, only 10% of Republicans. Partisanship. So what I do is look at how independents view it. Basically, doing away with most of the partisanship. 26% of independents say it was an insurrection, 32% say a riot much like Minneapolis and Portland. Curiously, 26% of independents don’t know, don’t care or whatever along with another 12% stating the events were carried out by opponents of Trump to make him look bad.

I think the bottom line is most independents don’t give a hoot about 6 Jan, they’re much more worried and care much more about rising prices and empty shelves in stores. Inflation is what independents say is this nation’s most important problem. Trump has been placed into the dust bin of history by most independents. They’re worried about making ends meet today, not something that happened more than a year ago. I think this is where Democrats are getting it wrong. Especially when the midterms are approaching. But it is what it is.

Neutral, Jordan isn't my congressman, I don't care if he runs or not. That's up to the people of his district to decide whether or not to reelect him. Their choice, not mine, not yours.
 
Neutral to me and neutral to other swing voters. Fact is you can't just say Jordan or anyone else participated in insurrection without proof or conviction either in a court of law or by a vote of congress. Well, you can say Jordan did, but that holds no water legally or constitutional wise.

So how do people look at 6 Jan these days, a partisan affair with minds made up according to partisanship?

6. Which of the following is closest to your point of view on the January 6, 2021 assault on the U.S.

Capitol building?

Total Democrat Republican Independent

The Jan. 6th events were an attempted coup or insurrection Total 32% Democrat 57% Republican 10% Independent 26%

The Jan. 6th events were a riot that got out of control Total 28% Democrat 20% Republican 38% Independent 32%

The Jan. 6th events were a reasonable protest Total 6% Democrat 4% Republican 9% Independent4%

The Jan. 6th events were carried out by opponents of Donald Trump, including Antifa and government agents Total 17% Democrat 8% Republican 30% Independent 12%

Don’t know Total 18% Democrat 11% Republican 13% Independent 26%

https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2021-12/Topline_NPR_Jan6_2.pdf

As you can see 57% of Democrats view 6 Jan as an insurrection, only 10% of Republicans. Partisanship. So what I do is look at how independents view it. Basically, doing away with most of the partisanship. 26% of independents say it was an insurrection, 32% say a riot much like Minneapolis and Portland. Curiously, 26% of independents don’t know, don’t care or whatever along with another 12% stating the events were carried out by opponents of Trump to make him look bad.

I think the bottom line is most independents don’t give a hoot about 6 Jan, they’re much more worried and care much more about rising prices and empty shelves in stores. Inflation is what independents say is this nation’s most important problem. Trump has been placed into the dust bin of history by most independents. They’re worried about making ends meet today, not something that happened more than a year ago. I think this is where Democrats are getting it wrong. Especially when the midterms are approaching. But it is what it is.

Neutral, Jordan isn't my congressman, I don't care if he runs or not. That's up to the people of his district to decide whether or not to reelect him. Their choice, not mine, not yours.
Swing voters are not the end all and ****ing be all of everything. You and i saw the same goddamn facts that he not only was complicit in it but also perpetuated it the illegal attempt to overturn the 2020 elections. Enough of this shit. If muh swing voters is all you are ever going to post then its best we didnt speak.

If justice is only going to be a popularity contest then i may as well just find greener pastures than this shit.

Why are you and i never able to get away with crimes because of polling but Trumpists are? This is just a game to you when for many its not.
 
Last edited:
I’ve never seen anyone so bereft of wanting justice than a pollster lol…
 
It’s allowed to do that under federal law,
Doesn't some of J Jordan's heated rhetoric give pause to what's allowed and what's dangerous coming from a US Rep during a volatile election that certainly plays a role with a very large mob to assault our US Capitol on 1/6/21?

Facts First: Jordan claimed in October that Democrats were working to steal the election and spoke at a "Stop the Steal" rally in Pennsylvania two days after the election. In December, he said he didn't know how he could be convinced that "Trump didn't actually win" the election. Jordan also objected to the electoral college results and called for an investigation into the election.

Criticizing a decision from the Supreme Court allowing mail-in ballots received up to three days after election day in Pennsylvania to be counted, Jordan tweeted on October 19 that "Democrats are trying to steal the election, after the election."



During his speech on January 6 objecting to Arizona's electoral results, -- moments before rioters invaded the Capitol -- Jordan implied that the results of the election were incorrect and that Trump should have won.

Trump, Jordan argued "got 11 million more votes than he did in 2016, and House Republicans won 27 of 27 toss-up races, but somehow the guy who never left his house wins the election?"
 
Doesn't some of J Jordan's heated rhetoric give pause to what's allowed and what's dangerous coming from a US Rep during a volatile election that certainly plays a role with a very large mob to assault our US Capitol on 1/6/21?

Facts First: Jordan claimed in October that Democrats were working to steal the election and spoke at a "Stop the Steal" rally in Pennsylvania two days after the election. In December, he said he didn't know how he could be convinced that "Trump didn't actually win" the election. Jordan also objected to the electoral college results and called for an investigation into the election.

Criticizing a decision from the Supreme Court allowing mail-in ballots received up to three days after election day in Pennsylvania to be counted, Jordan tweeted on October 19 that "Democrats are trying to steal the election, after the election."



During his speech on January 6 objecting to Arizona's electoral results, -- moments before rioters invaded the Capitol -- Jordan implied that the results of the election were incorrect and that Trump should have won.

Trump, Jordan argued "got 11 million more votes than he did in 2016, and House Republicans won 27 of 27 toss-up races, but somehow the guy who never left his house wins the election?"
I’m not justifying what Jordan or any politician has done who has voted against certifying the electoral college votes. The simple fact is a poorly written law allowed for just this activity to take place which is why Congress kinda wants to change the Electoral Count Act.
 
Back
Top Bottom