Efforts to keep former President Donald Trump off the 2024 ballot under the 14th Amendment are gaining momentum as election officials in key states are preparing for or starting to respond to legal challenges to Trump's candidacy.

The argument to disqualify Trump from appearing on primary or general election ballots in 2024 boils down to Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which states that an elected official is not eligible to assume public office if that person "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against" the United States, or had "given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof," unless they are granted amnesty by a two-thirds vote of Congress.

Several advocacy groups have said that Trump's actions on Jan. 6, 2021, fit that criteria -- that he directly engaged in an insurrection. The legal theory has been pursued, unsuccessfully, against a few other elected Republicans; arguing their actions around Jan. 6 and support for overturning the 2020 election results amounted to the disqualifying behavior.

 

Trump has denied any involvement in the attack on the Capitol.

"Joe Biden, Democrats, and Never Trumpers are scared to death because they see polls showing President Trump winning in the general election," Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Chung told ABC News in a statement. "The people who are pursuing this absurd conspiracy theory and political attack on President Trump are stretching the law beyond recognition much like the political prosecutors in New York, Georgia, and DC. There is no legal basis for this effort ... "

The push to disqualify Trump under this constitutional clause gained more traction when two members of the conservative Federalist Society, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, recently supported the idea in the pages of the Pennsylvania Law Review. Following the Baude and Paulsen article, retired conservative federal appeals judge J. Michael Luttig and Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Laurence Tribe made the same argument in The Atlantic.

 

FULL STORY

Well he certainly engaged in a rebellion against the government after he lost the election he certainly sent a mob to ransack the capital he certainly sicked a mob on the Vice President when he refused to participate in trumps rebellion/coup attempt.now the question is how can Trump continue to sucker people into sending him money if he’s not allowed to run for office president 

Edited September 2, 20232 yr by Tug

Please, don't break my dream of watching Trump campaigning from a prison cell!

This really will be a test of the legal system. Don't have laws if you aren't going to apply them to ONE AND ALL!

9 minutes ago, HappyExpat57 said:

This really will be a test of the legal system. Don't have laws if you aren't going to apply them to ONE AND ALL!

He has to be found guilty first before such laws can be applied I suspect. And as far as I've seen he hasn't been charged with insurrection either.

24 minutes ago, BusyB said:

He has to be found guilty first before such laws can be applied I suspect. And as far as I've seen he hasn't been charged with insurrection either.

Not technically insurrection, rather giving aid to an attack on the government which he did through action and INACTION. This could easily be proved. Even his daughter was practically begging him to put the word out to stop.

8 minutes ago, HappyExpat57 said:

Not technically insurrection, rather giving aid to an attack on the government which he did through action and INACTION. This could easily be proved. Even his daughter was practically begging him to put the word out to stop.

"Be there. It will be wild". Sounds insurrectionish to me. He wasn't charged because it would be a risky proposition but conspiracy to defraud the US will be a doddle.

Send backwards to me. He should be going guilty of insurrection before applying the 24th amendment.

2 hours ago, BusyB said:

He has to be found guilty first before such laws can be applied I suspect. And as far as I've seen he hasn't been charged with insurrection either.

Apparently he does not have to be found guilty first. The law is written that any person that ENGAGES in insurrection (not found guilty of insurrection) is disqualified from office. It is then up to the secretary of state from each state to disqualify him, He can then challenge that in court. It will no doubt end up in state and then federal supreme courts, Will be interesting to see how it goes.

    Easily guilty.  Block him from running in enough states and then let's see what the spineless Republicans do.

On 9/2/2023 at 9:18 AM, Tug said:

 how can Trump continue to sucker people into sending him money if he’s not allowed to run for office president 

He has problems there too: Trump's mugshot T-shirt cash grab could backfire and cost him millions: legal experts (msn.com)

1 minute ago, FritsSikkink said:

He has problems there too: Trump's mugshot T-shirt cash grab could backfire and cost him millions: legal experts (msn.com)

He's not proving to be the businessman he touted himself as and which the rubes believed him to be. Apart from historical failures like wines, steak, universities, airlines, casinos, we now have Truth Social about o collapse and Trump will have to repay investors many millions. Then there is the prospect that his campaign fees won't be allowable as legal fees. That would bankrupt him. He's headed for that now and knows it which is why he unloaded the tower onto one of his sons.

23 hours ago, HappyExpat57 said:

Not technically insurrection, rather giving aid to an attack on the government which he did through action and INACTION. This could easily be proved. Even his daughter was practically begging him to put the word out to stop.

I think and hope so. But we'll see. The vagaries of jurisprudence can be very deceptive - as every lawyer who's lost a case will know. And even if he's found guilty of all of that, it's still not guilty of the charge of insurrection which seems to be the condition for banning him.

21 hours ago, ALLSEEINGEYE said:

Apparently he does not have to be found guilty first. The law is written that any person that ENGAGES in insurrection (not found guilty of insurrection) is disqualified from office. It is then up to the secretary of state from each state to disqualify him, He can then challenge that in court. It will no doubt end up in state and then federal supreme courts, Will be interesting to see how it goes.

By the time that circus is over he'll have had another 4 years in the WH ????

 

But I see. what you're saying.

Another act of desperation and waste of time, more so than the 4 indictments that, if they go to trial and Trumps convicted, the SCOTUS will overturn. They will have to if they follow the law.

 

There was no insurrection, the FBI concluded that, the J6 committee recommended insurrection charges but SCO Jack Smith declined to charge it due to zero evidence of any insurrection,

If SCO Jack Smith could get away with criminally charging “insurrection,” who thinks he would not bring that charge?

But Trump has not been charged, criminally, with “insurrection.” Not even Jack Smith is that stupid, as such a charge would get thrown out on appeal before it got started.

Though not defined, the clear context of “insurrection” means an armed insurrection against the United States by one who has denounced the United States.

No weapons were uncovered at J6 riots and Trump urged protesters to make their voices heard "patriotically and peacefully". There is a consensus among the many deluded Trump hating fools and those that outright fear Trump who dream up their own nonsense fantasies completely detached from reality. A noted democrat legal scholar Alan Dershovitz who dislikes Trump lends his esteemed views that the 14th amendment as it is written cannot disqualify Trump from running for office.

 

Additional notes:

"Section 2383, the statute underlying the professors’ argument, cannot apply to a sitting president:

"Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. (Emphasis added.)"

As long as he was president, Trump was “the authority of the United States”—or at least one aspect of that authority. He was not some Joe Blow in the outer reaches of nowhere or Citadel students firing on Fort Sumter. He was the sitting president and, per the election of 2016 (at the very least), the embodiment of the United States.

 

 

30 yesr law professor Lawrence Tribe plus a conerservative ex Republican lawyer who has worked in the white house under many presidents  are also of the opinion 14/3 applies.   Forget his name.    The supreme court will need to decide this case.   The crooked court. 

I wonder if those AN members in TH and familiar with recent political gangsterism here have, like me, wondered sadly at how the (very) apparent collapse of democracy in the west only serves the interests of those utterly opposed to it here. Those whose will have tragically prevailed. 

 

The so-called 'models of democracy' in the west were models only in the alternative sense of being dressed-up mannequins. 

 

Unless Trump is convicted of sedition, this is going nowhere.

 

No reason to bar Trump from running without a conviction.

Clearly disqualifying Trump from running is the ultimate goal of those currently weaponizing the justice system.

 

Getting a conviction for insurrection will be difficult though, even when you have all your favourite "Liberal" judges on the case. 

7 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Clearly disqualifying Trump from running is the ultimate goal of those currently weaponizing the justice system.

 

Getting a conviction for insurrection will be difficult though, even when you have all your favourite "Liberal" judges on the case. 

You start with the false premise of a weaponized DoJ and then wander into pure conspiracy laced speculation.

 

 

10 Trump threads on the first page of this sub forum.

Pontius Pilate would be proud.

16 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Clearly disqualifying Trump from running is the ultimate goal of those currently weaponizing the justice system.

 

Getting a conviction for insurrection will be difficult though, even when you have all your favourite "Liberal" judges on the case. 

Getting a conviction for insurrection is actually impossible as Trump has not been charged with insurrection.

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

Getting a conviction for insurrection is actually impossible as Trump has not been charged with insurrection.

Yet.

 

The timing of the charges thus far are not accidental.  

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

Yet.

 

The timing of the charges thus far are not accidental.  

Making this up now ok

There has been one settled case since Jan. 6 that invoked the 14th Amendment. In September, a judge in New Mexico ordered a county commissioner convicted of participating in the Jan. 6 riot removed from office under the 14th Amendment. He was the first public official in more than a century to be barred from serving under a constitutional ban on insurrectionists holding office.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/30/us/politics/trump-14th-amendment.html

9 minutes ago, rocketboy2 said:

10 Trump threads on the first page of this sub forum.

Pontius Pilate would be proud.

Pontius Pilot found no guilt.

11 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Yet.

 

The timing of the charges thus far are not accidental.  

Beyond the timing being determined by judicial process and somewhat delayed by attempts by Trump associates to avoid giving evidence, do care to explain why the timings are, as you claim, ‘not accidental’?

 

 

On 9/2/2023 at 1:48 PM, candide said:

Please, don't break my dream of watching Trump campaigning from a prison cell!

5555....that would be priceless.  I for one want Trump to be on the ballot and be the GOP nominee.  Not just for entertainment's sake, but because Trump is about the only Republican that Joe Biden can easily beat. 

43 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

There has been one settled case since Jan. 6 that invoked the 14th Amendment. In September, a judge in New Mexico ordered a county commissioner convicted of participating in the Jan. 6 riot removed from office under the 14th Amendment. He was the first public official in more than a century to be barred from serving under a constitutional ban on insurrectionists holding office.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/30/us/politics/trump-14th-amendment.html

Thanks 

Democrat... "Let's try the 14th Amendment... right now nothing else is working... people are still going to vote for him"

 

True American... "That's OK to look at the 14th Amendment... BUT let's not trash the 5th Amendment while doing so."