ChatterBank0 min ago
At Least Some Americans Have Common-Sense
21 Answers
Yet to be proven in the courts but some hope that it comes off - I count a total of 15 states involved in some degree. If the judgement is made about the 14th Amendment, will the others follow? No doubt, we'll see the AB Trumpists out here trumpeting about how unfair and undemocratic this legal action is but the man is solely responsible for the legal pickles he is in.
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by DTCwordfan. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// Until he's convicted of committing a crime I can't see how he can be deemed ineligible. //
This seems to be an ongoing legal argument, see eg https:/
Firstly, the relevant Constitutional Amendment (14.3), lightly edited to remove irrelevant alternative cases:
// No person shall ... hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, who, having previously taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same... //
Secondly, some quotes from the AtlanticToday article:
// Having thought long and deeply about the text, history, and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause for much of our professional careers, both of us concluded some years ago that, in fact, a conviction would be beside the point. The disqualification clause operates independently of any such criminal proceedings ... [and] was designed to operate directly and immediately upon those who betray their oaths to the Constitution, whether by taking up arms to overturn our government or by waging war on our government by attempting to overturn a presidential election through a bloodless coup. //
// The former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential ... place him squarely within the ambit of the disqualification clause, and he is therefore ineligible to serve as president ever again. The most pressing constitutional question facing our country at this moment, then, is whether we will abide by this clear command of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause. //
It goes on, but the only other point I want to make now is that the scholarly article above is written by "two of the most prominent conservative constitutional scholars in America", which if true would at least somewhat shield them from accusations of political bias.
It's all a mess. For my part, I have to say that even if the argument were academically correct, it might be politically extremely difficult to defend, especially without a criminal conviction. On the other hand, the wheels of justice are moving very slowly indeed, and it's extremely unlikely that the various relevant trials will be resolved prior to the election.
This seems to be an ongoing legal argument, see eg https:/
Firstly, the relevant Constitutional Amendment (14.3), lightly edited to remove irrelevant alternative cases:
// No person shall ... hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, who, having previously taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same... //
Secondly, some quotes from the AtlanticToday article:
// Having thought long and deeply about the text, history, and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause for much of our professional careers, both of us concluded some years ago that, in fact, a conviction would be beside the point. The disqualification clause operates independently of any such criminal proceedings ... [and] was designed to operate directly and immediately upon those who betray their oaths to the Constitution, whether by taking up arms to overturn our government or by waging war on our government by attempting to overturn a presidential election through a bloodless coup. //
// The former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential ... place him squarely within the ambit of the disqualification clause, and he is therefore ineligible to serve as president ever again. The most pressing constitutional question facing our country at this moment, then, is whether we will abide by this clear command of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause. //
It goes on, but the only other point I want to make now is that the scholarly article above is written by "two of the most prominent conservative constitutional scholars in America", which if true would at least somewhat shield them from accusations of political bias.
It's all a mess. For my part, I have to say that even if the argument were academically correct, it might be politically extremely difficult to defend, especially without a criminal conviction. On the other hand, the wheels of justice are moving very slowly indeed, and it's extremely unlikely that the various relevant trials will be resolved prior to the election.
By flirting with the electoral process in their increasingly fervent desire to dispossess President Trump from possible re-election, the Democrats are in serious danger of chasing their quarry over a cliff.
However odious the former President may be, he cannot be prevented from running for election by manipulation of the electoral process.
That will simply make the Democrats as foolish as he is, for allowing to correctly claim, this time, that the election was rigged.
However odious the former President may be, he cannot be prevented from running for election by manipulation of the electoral process.
That will simply make the Democrats as foolish as he is, for allowing to correctly claim, this time, that the election was rigged.
// By flirting with the electoral process in their increasingly fervent desire to dispossess President Trump from possible re-election, the Democrats are in serious danger of chasing their quarry over a cliff.
However odious the former President may be, he cannot be prevented from running for election by manipulation of the electoral process... //
That would indeed be troubling, if that's what's happening. But I think it's a misrepresentation for two reasons:
1. Firstly, the reason this is even coming up is because there is a Constitutional argument to be made that Trump is excluded; see my post earlier, and the links within it. By virtue of how the US is organised, if there is a clear Constitutional barrier in the way of Trump, or anybody else, then enforcing that barrier is *not* political. (See later for more).
2. I am not sure that it's even true that the relevant officials are considering the arguments above in a serious sense. The link here ( https:/
At the moment, this is an academic question, nothing more. If people were to advance it in practice, then in one sense or another it would have to be tested in Court, indeed in the Supreme Court. There's no reason to take it seriously, or to give any weight to Trump's repeated claims that the elections are rigged against him specifically, which he has made, and will continue to make, irrespective of the facts and evidence against that.
However odious the former President may be, he cannot be prevented from running for election by manipulation of the electoral process... //
That would indeed be troubling, if that's what's happening. But I think it's a misrepresentation for two reasons:
1. Firstly, the reason this is even coming up is because there is a Constitutional argument to be made that Trump is excluded; see my post earlier, and the links within it. By virtue of how the US is organised, if there is a clear Constitutional barrier in the way of Trump, or anybody else, then enforcing that barrier is *not* political. (See later for more).
2. I am not sure that it's even true that the relevant officials are considering the arguments above in a serious sense. The link here ( https:/
At the moment, this is an academic question, nothing more. If people were to advance it in practice, then in one sense or another it would have to be tested in Court, indeed in the Supreme Court. There's no reason to take it seriously, or to give any weight to Trump's repeated claims that the elections are rigged against him specifically, which he has made, and will continue to make, irrespective of the facts and evidence against that.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.