Posted on 08/21/2023 8:10:44 AM PDT by Tench_Coxe
As Donald Trump fights a mountain of criminal charges, a separate battle over his eligibility to run for president in 2024 is fast emerging.
The US constitution sets out just a handful of explicit requirements someone must meet to be the president. They must be at least 35 years old, a “natural-born” citizen, and a United States resident for at least 14 years. The constitution also bars someone who has served as president for two full terms from running again.
None of those requirements disqualify Trump, or anyone else charged with a crime, from running for federal office.
But one provision in the constitution, section 3 of the 14th amendment, makes things more complicated. It says that no person who has taken an oath “as an officer of the United States” can hold office if they “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof”.
(snip)
Disqualification under the 14th amendment does not require a criminal conviction, Noah Bookbinder, the executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew), said in an interview earlier this month. The push to disqualify Trump is likely to play out at the state level in parallel to both the federal and state cases criminally charging Trump and allies in connection with their efforts to overturn the election. The left-leaning group Free Speech for People has already sent letters to election officials in 10 states urging them to declare Trump ineligible to run for office under the 14th amendment. Crew is also preparing to file litigation in several states to disqualify Trump from the ballot, Bookbinder said.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
“Disqualification under the 14th amendment does not require a criminal conviction, Noah Bookbinder, the executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew), said...”
So, Joe Biden and the Dems engaged in insurrection by rigging the 2020 election and conspiring to prosecute ther victim for resisting their plot. According to Noah Bookbinder, no criminal conviction is necessary. So I call on ALL states to keep them off the ballot for 2024.
The Secretaries of State in the various states will try to keep Trump off the ballot.
It’s the same old game.
Lincoln wasn’t on the ballot in most/all of the southern states in 1860. So this wouldn’t be the first time they did it.
Newsom has too much ambition for the Dems. He may go rogue for personal monetary gain and they have their hands full with Biden and Hunter. They need a Go Along With Our Plan and Don’t Make Waves candidate.
...and the State would need to PROVE otherwise which is akin to declaring that they know what somebody was thinking.
Not possible.
And to say that a conviction isn’t necessary? Really? So due process doesn’t apply and you can just label somebody as an ‘insurrectionist’ making them ineligible to run for POTUS?
lol.
Another example of the left bastardizing the language.
“Total purposeful misuse of the word insurrection.”
Exactly. However, the left gets to define “insurrection” to fit the circumstance of their choice.
Any politician that gave financial aid or moral support to any bail fund that helped protestors in Seattle and Portland who were arrested at the Federal Court House or the autonomous zone or those in DC who were rioting at the White House can be considered to have given aid to insurrectionists. The protesters at these locations made clear they were in favor of overthrowing the government and those at the Federal Court House in Seattle or the White House in DC were actively attacking Federal property and personnel.
It has never been established that any insurrection took place on January 6, 2021. A mob was gathered, but except for one unarmed person being killed, and a number of windows broken, it was probably one of the most “peaceful” demonstrations in any major US city in the previous three years.
Unlawful, was it? By what measure? What does “lawful” even MEAN in this context?
Bannon on The War Room had Dershowitz on and he explained exactly why this cannot constitutionally be done this morning. It’s not up yet on RAV but there is always a link to his show segments later on.
No. Next.
What’s the big deal, obama is not the “official” president but he is clearly running things.
Exactly !
Trump does NOT have to prove he won the election.
The prosecution MUST prove - beyond a reasonable doubt - that Trump LOST the election.
The prosecution cannot prove that.
How many ineligible voters cast a ballot?
Forever unknown.
How many ballots had no verifiable chain of custody?
Forever unknown.
Case closed.
Calling Jan 6 an “insurrection” is like calling Stacey Abrams “anorexic”.
Corrected. Fat people can have low blood iron levels too.
More masturbatory Leftist musings.
“Section 3.
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.”
Is the president an “officer of the United States”?
“Article II
Section 2 Powers
Clause 2 Advice and Consent
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”
The Constitution has a list of “officers” of the United States. All of them are appointed, rather than elected, positions. Courts have always, to the best of my knowledge, treated “officers” as appointed rather than elected positions. Therefore, President Trump is not jurisdictionally impacted by this standard, even IF (and it’s a big if), he had engaged in the activities he’s been accused of.
Courts will adjudicate this. Whatever doesn’t kill him only makes him stronger.
Can we finally admit the nasty, cynical awfulness of the 14th Amendment?
Unfortunately for Trump, section 3 is vague--it doesn't say that you have to be convicted of insurrection, only that someone "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the United States.
But voters are not voting for the candidates--they are voting for electors pledged to a particular candidate.
I don’t think that Trump served with Robert E Lee or Stonewall Jackson, or was on Jefferson Davis cabinet.
Therefore, he is definitely eligible to run for President again!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.