Could the 14th Amendment Ban Trump From Holding Office Again? (msn.com) Two of the primary penalties being considered for our insurrectionist soon-to-be former president must be initiated by Congress (impeachment) or by Trump’s vice-president and Cabinet (removal via the 25th Amendment). But there’s another scenario that would not require action from any of these parties: Trump may already be barred from running for or holding future office under the terms of Section Three of the 14th Amendment, which reads: 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. The article then describes the history of the amendment (below), and considers legal success a longshot, which I agree with. Dems call it "plan D." This clause of the 14th Amendment (passed in June of 1866 and ratified in July of 1868 ) was intended to bar ex-Confederate military officers and civilian officials from holding political office at a time when then-soon-to-be-impeached President Andrew Johnson was handing out pardons to former rebels like candy. But the article's conclusion is indeed, sweet: There is, however, something satisfying about branding Trump with the same “traitor” label born by those Confederates he has so resolutely defended as an honorable part of “our history.” I’ve argued that Trump’s whole approach to race relations makes him a “neo-Confederate,” and the same could be true of his approach to voting rights and elections. Just as those seceding from the United States in 1861 could not accept the election of Abraham Lincoln, Trump cannot accept Joe Biden’s 2020 victory, preferring to incite violence against Congress for the sin of confirming it. If Republicans manage to block a ban on a future Trump run for office via the impeachment process, opponents of insurrection should definitely prepare to wield the 14th Amendment to keep this latter-day Jefferson Davis from returning to power in the government he betrayed. Nice. What I'd enjoy hearing is any argument that Donald Trump did not violate Section Three of the 14th Amendment. To my eyes, Trump's guilt is plain, academic. So, if you can defend Trump on this, have at it. (While the article is biased, and the rhetoric mildly inflammatory, please don't focus on that. The constitutional text is clear.)
From an objective, academic standpoint, you are wrong. No rational interpretation could reach the conclusion he is guilty of this. That being said, dems literally think he colluded with russia and the evidence "was all over". So I'm not surprised there are those who believe this nonsense. Furthermore, dem politicians have supported and incited violence for years, most recently with the blm riots that took place for months. Yet not a peep about it from them or the MSM. Astounding, but not really.
Depends how " engaged in insurrection or rebellion. ..." or " given aid and comfort to enemies thereof" is interpreted by the courts. Key word "engaged". Is incitement to riot or insurrection considered "engaging" in insurrection ?
Exactly. I don't think it would work, but it would definitely be justice served. To me, "We love you, you're very special" gives comfort, and holding a hate rally is giving aid. That probably wouldn't pass muster legally because the "aid and comfort" when the 14th was written was in the context of war, not a riot. The principle is the same, however.
Which is why Dems are betting on impeachment; a court not of law but of theatrics. In a court of law the defense would hold up every one of his tweets as evidence of someone who a) did what countless politicians, pundits, and organizes have been doing all year - rallying people to a cause, and b) told people to stop being violent and go home when a few bad actors spoiled the event. In the court of theatrics that is this impeachment nonsense they wont mention his words once, not once Mello, I'm telling you now, they will not once, NOT ONCE, specifically cite his words. They'll just churn up false narratives and drop scary sounding words like 'insurrection' and 'sedition' because the MSM would rather spend all of 2021 focused on Trump than on Biden.
Even if he didn’t directly tell them to storm the capitol, he created this with months of lies about a stolen election and enemies of the state
I think it's important to tell the future generations that what Trump did after the election is at least as bad as lying about blow jobs.
Yes because only Civil War-era secessionists and Pres. Trump have ever questioned an election result...
He says, as if the left had not spent the last four years rejecting the results of the 2016 election and painting Pres Trump as an enemy of the state.
Russia helped him but the results are what they are. I don’t know anyone who claims he didn’t win. I think he proved he’s an enemy of the state.
