Democrats Eye New Way to Get Trump Off Ballot After Supreme Court Loss: Rep. Jamie Raskin plans to revive legislation barring Trump from office via 14th amendment

Newsweek via MSN ^ | 03/04/2024 | Jon Jackson

[SeekAndFind]

Representative Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat, on Monday said he's working with colleagues on legislation that could bar someone who committed insurrection from holding office.

Raskin made the announcement after the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that former President Donald Trump should appear on the primary ballot in states that have challenged his presidential candidacy.

"I'm working with a number of my colleagues—including [Democratic Representatives] Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Eric Swalwell—to revive legislation...to set up a process by which we could determine that someone who committed insurrection is disqualified by section three of the 14th amendment," Raskin said during an appearance on CNN.

The Context

Trump's eligibility for the White House has been challenged in numerous states by groups citing a clause found in the Constitution's 14th Amendment. This Civil War-era clause prohibits officials who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution from holding office if they've "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" or "given aid or comfort" to those who did.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court reached a 9-0 decision to side with Trump and overturned a decision by the Colorado Supreme Court that the former president should be removed from the state's ballot in the 2024 election for his alleged role in the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.

In August, the former president was indicted by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in its investigation regarding the riot. The insurrection saw a mob of Trump supporters—allegedly incited by his unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud—violently protest at the Capitol building in a failed effort to block Joe Biden's 2020 Electoral College victory. Trump has plead not guilty in the case, maintaining his innocence.

[SeekAndFind]

For those who don't remember.... it was Raskin who introduced legislation with Wasserman Schultz in 2022 that would lay the groundwork for the U.S. Justice Department to sue in order to prevent candidates from holding office if they committed insurrection.

Reintroducing the measure would bring the 14th Amendment argument against Trump's eligibility to the House floor.

[dpetty121263]

Doubtful...unless Congress wants a real war...and then hanging from lamp posts..

[JudyinCanada]

Wouldn’t he have to be formally charged and found guilty of insurrection? That could take awhile.

[RedMonqey]

Getting 2/3rds of the house and senate is going to be a bit@h.
Even withe the neverTrumpers still in Congress.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Wouldn’t he have to be formally charged and found guilty of insurrection?

Well, how many times are they going to do this? They’ve already impeached Trump a second time for this and he was cleared of this charge by the Senate.

This looks like double jeopardy and even triple jeopardy of you include the Jack Smithg indictments.

They’re desperate to use any crooked means to bar Trump because they have nothing substantial to offer the American People on the issues.

[muir_redwoods]

1) Trump has not been charged, tried or convicted of insurrection
2) Section 3 of the 14th amendment names specific offices barred by the Amendment, President is not one of them.

How complicated is this?

[Nervous Tick]

There’s a lot of smack talk about civil war if this or that thing happens.

But I truly believe that President Trump re-elected — followed by a squirrel like Jamie Raskin getting him cancelled with a 14th amendment stunt, and the Supremes going along with it — might indeed touch off a scorched earth CWII.

That would not be a good thing. But it might be better than living under the tyranny that would follow if it is not vigorously opposed.

[Political Junkie Too]

First, any act of Congress cannot be a bill of attainder (a punitive law against a single subject), nor can it be ex post facto (making something criminal after the act had occurred).

Second, the President is absent from the list of federal offices in the 14th amendment. This clearly supports the SCOTUS ruling that offices that represent single states was the intended scope of the 14th amendment.

Third, anything Congress does must address the limitations of the second point. Congress cannot simply legislate that the President is now included in the 14th amendment. Only another amendment can alter an existing amendment.

Fourth, Congress can pass a law describing exactly which behaviors constitute "insurrection" for purposes of the 14th amendment, perhaps even making them specific to Representatives, Senators, and Electors, but any law will have to pertain to future actions of said people, not past actions.

Fifth, any law that Congress can think of to "ban Trump" from the ballot must be signed by the President. Joe Biden signing a law disqualifying the opposition candidate who is beating him in the polls will not sit well with half the country. THAT may be the spark that ignites a new civil war.

-PJ

[milagro]

Since when do the Democrats need to have proof of a “crime” being committed before accusing someone of committing a crime?

[SeekAndFind]

RE: 1) Trump has not been charged, tried or convicted of insurrection

Trump HAS BEEN charged, tried and EXONERATED of insurrection during the second impeachment trial in the US Senate. How many times do they want to beat this dead horse?

[Nervous Tick]

>> Wouldn’t he have to be formally charged and found guilty of insurrection?

Only if the rule of law had any impact.

Anyway, he already HAS essentially been “formally charged” — that would be “Impeachment Two! The Sequel”. Result: acquittal.

But again, the ‘Rats don’t seem to be all that into following the law anymore.

[j.havenfarm]

I’m not sure where you get that margin from. This would be enabling legislation of a constitutional amendment. It’s amazing that the author has the mendacity to treat this as serious. It can’t get a majority in the house, and I’ll bet not even the never trumpers vote for it in the senate. No way it gets 60 votes

[kiryandil]

LOL!

The Tater would literally have to sign the bill barring his presidential opponent from the ballot.

[stylin19a]

that’s what i am thinking. there is already a law on the books re: insurrection.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383

[Bullish]

No chance this goes anywhere, but it will give the bloviators gist for their bloviating, I guess.

[Maudeen]

These people are obsessed and possessed.

[Bullish]

You forgot the aviator sunglasses on Herr Biden.

[hillarys cankles]

Is it wrong that I hope the democrats actually succeed in keeping trump from running?

We’re headed toward a civil war eventually. Id like it to happen before I’m too old to fight.

[blackdog]

"Eat yer peas" moment.

-Barry Obama

[blackdog]

The Beltway bureaucrats have carefully worked 50 years to control higher education, primary education, control contracts, enrich their families and friends, reap wealth from insider trading, profited from absurd wars, regulate every aspect of your life, grow government to 29.5 million federal employees(counting full, part time, and contract workers, and made questioning a school board a felony.

Trump will not be allowed to dismantle their corrupt authoritarian rule. Ever.