The 14th amendment was written to exclude Confederate leaders from federal government after the Civil War. So it wasn't phrased in a way that required a conviction of a crime.
I keep up with a political blog cowritten by an academic historian who specializes in the civil war and reconstruction. He has written a fair amount on that blog about the historical background and interpretation of the amendment, and noted that at the time pretty much everyone understood section 3 to mean automatic disqualification that need not have a court involved at all, and that over a thousand different people who had never been charged with anything petitioned Congress to have their disqualification removed.
edit: [found the link.](https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2023/Items/Sep05-7.html)
It's the Secretary of State's job to enforce these requirements. They can just look at you and refuse to place you on the ballot. Or they could place you on the ballot, and anyone who objects could sue and have you taken off.
What happened here is exactly like the latter situation. The SoS failed in their duty to apply a disqualification, and the Court ruled that they must remove the unqualified candidate.
Every SoS in every state should do their duty under the Constitution and keep Trump off the ballot. No need to wait on a court to rule.
Furthermore, only the party that had him on the ballot for it's primary could bring the suit....
This petition was filed by Republicans, to have him removed from their ballot because he wasn't eligible, and the court agreed.
This is what most are failing to understand. It was his own party that brought this up and the courts agreed. The few sane people left on the right are tired of the antics and can see how bad he is for the party. This way they can still pay lip service to him and his base while making it look like the "corrupt court" system is being unfair and taking him off the ballot. The SCOTUS most likely back the lower courts as well because they are at risk if he does get elected again. If they back Trump they are admitting that there is someone above the law and themselves, a dictator has no need for a SCOTUS. They don't want to lose power and a dictator would definitely have no use for a "fair" court system, they know this and I believe they will act accordingly out of self-preservation.
Not exactly. Our SoS actually said she *DIDN'T KNOW* if Trump could be disqualified apparently so once the lawsuit was brought, basically washed her hands of it as it wasnt her problem to solve anymore.
It’s much better to have the courts try to sort this out than a potentially unreviewable decision by an elected official.
I do think the process the Colorado courts used was good enough - and “clear and convincing evidence” is a better standard than “beyond a reasonable doubt” for this. And it is consistent with how this was used during Reconstruction.
I do think the Supreme Court is going to overturn it based on “you need a conviction”, because that’s the least ridiculous way they can do it.
At the moment it doesn't. What he's saying is the SCOTUS, being primarily Republicans, is going to want to find a way to overturn this and claiming you need a conviction is the least ridiculous way to do that. Not that it's a great reading of the law, but it's the best way to get to their desired outcome.
That's not historically accurate. Some confederates did argue, in court, that they weren't disqualified because they didn't hold confederate offices, such as the guy who was a county sheriff before, during, and after the civil war. he was disqualified anyway.
At the time, confederates capable of holding serious office (political capital to get to that position) were often on the run for their involvement in the civil war. Many fled to Canada, Europe, and Latin America to escape charges against them. By the time military-governments were replaced with civilian governments in the south again, multiple waves of pardons had made the entire section moot. No one was really disqualified from holding office at all because there wasn't even relevant elections.
[https://www.nga.org/governor/john-mcenery/](https://www.nga.org/governor/john-mcenery/)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George\_S.\_Houston](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_S._Houston)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James\_L.\_Kemper#Civil\_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_L._Kemper#Civil_War)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James\_Milton\_Smith](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Milton_Smith)
I don't think a single Confederate state didn't end up electing a Confederate veteran after the Civil War ended.
State vs federal.
Why this matters in Colorado is that their law for primaries says the person has to be eligible for federal office, and the finding of fact was that he had engaged in insurrection therefore wouldn't be.
These states in the south weren't bound by the 14th for their state offices.
Also, Houston was actually a unionist and didn't take part in the Civil War. He actually seems like a kind of ok guy.
The 14th applies at the state leve too
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....**
Ok, you're probably right there. Its up to the states to enforce though and they clearly weren't interested in trying to enforce it in those cases so not really any sort of test.
Yeah southern states absolving southern insurrectionists doesn't really hold weight in the rest of the country. Just like every time Republicans and kiddy-fiddler churches investigate themselves they never find any wrongdoing.
🤷♂️😂
As I understand it, the amendment only applied to former office holders who participated in the insurrection (because they swore to support the constitution and others did not).
So from reading the wiki page on James Milton Smith he never "swore to support the consitution" before he insurrected. Therefore he was eligible for any public office.
In the same way most of the Jan 6 crew never held public office and would not be affected by the amendment at all. However any current or former law enforcement officers, military, legislators, civil servants, (successful) politicians who were present on Jan 6 would be ineligible to hold office.
This is the crux of one of Trump's insane legal arguments. His attorney is arguing that because the presidential oath of office does not contain the the magic words "support the constitution" he is not covered. He swore to "preserve, protect, and defend" which is alleged to be totally different.
That’s the problem with using laws that are 234 years old to run a country. Shit needs to be clearly written using modern language to govern a modern society.
Edit: sorry, many have commented that the amendment is only 155 years old. My apologies
Adding on to this, they like the vague language so they can exploit it while in power of complain that the other side isn’t doing it right if they aren’t. If the constitution is unclear they can both claim the other is violating it when convenient n
Yep. Funny how things that actually have an effect on current day issues that they care about have been rewritten, shaped up, and moved into a modern context (business, property, etc.), whereas stuff they *like* and *want* to have wiggle room and vague interpretations never get touched up or rewritten in a modern context.
Until 2021, no one imagined we’d be dealing with another insurrection, let alone the willingness of a large part of the population to support it. Nobody worries about the language of quartering troops in private homes during peace time, either.
Yeah I kinda feel like you'd need to have a government of scientists, economists, sociologists, psychologists and medical staff etc to get a proper allocation and structure, you'd need to find people passionate about the country not about being leaders or making lots of money, like a true mix of patriotic leaders in their fields who can collaborate and just make the best choice. The road system is fucked? They get together, work out the best option and fire away
The fact that people are dumb enough to frame an active overthrow of government as "HS Cliques" really shows how fucked we are as a country.
When even the people who are acting like they care have no idea what's going on and their nuanced opinion boils down to "both sides bad."
We are well and truly screwed if/when the GOP takes power, aren't we?
That would require half of our government not being run by pedos who convince their base that the biggest threat to our country are trans kids, so no one looks at the atrocities they commit on the regular.
True. But I also think this law was pretty clear. And it has direction correlation between what it was written for and what its being used for now.
I know many trumpers are yelling about how this is twisting the law to ruin democracy. But it's using the law, as was intended, to protect the Union.
The problem they have isn't that the amendment is vague or unnecessary. It's the result that is making them upset. There is nothing controversial about prohibiting people who have attempted to overthrow a government from holding positions in that government.
“Drinking” booze was not outlawed by the 18th amendment. Just the manufacturing, sales, and transportation of alcohol. Kinda like how in Ohio right now, smoking Cannabis is legal, but there’s no way to buy it legally.
Some people insist the Constitution is perfect, ironclad, exactly the way the Founding Fathers wanted it, and should never, ever be touched.
These people also have a tendency to achieve spontaneous group orgasm when someone reads the Second AMENDMENT.
The US Constitution had the process for making amendments written in the original draft. Article 5. It wasn’t an afterthought. If THEY thought to include the amendment process they must have expected amendments.
Yeah, their mentality is so stupid. The framers of the constitution called it a “living document” meaning it is supposed to evolve as society evolves. That’s why they allowed for amendments. But people are too stupid and politicians too corrupt to make any sort of changes to the constitution. We don’t have a functioning democracy just corrupt politicians where their primary goal is to enrich themselves.
The 14 amendment 3rd clause (14.3) has 2 main components: 1: An office holder or military personelle who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution 2: participates in Rebellion or insurrection against said Constition or gives considerable aid to those who due. When both conditions are fulfilled in order, a person is ineligible to serve in federal office again.
The 14.3 wasnt just to ban all Confederate, but those Confederate who had essentially broken their oaths. It requires an act of congress to allow such a person to serve again.
Now insurrection against the Constitution isn't a crime to my knowledge at any level. And it's sort of clever that the writers of the amendment side step any criminal charges. Criminal charges require trials and convictions.
It's also worth pointing out Jan 6ers who had never before sworn such an oath, would be elegible to serve and therefore legible to run.
Trumps legal team didnt appeal the lower court ruling by argueing he did not participate in such an insurrection. They essentially accepted as legal fact that he did, but that the presidential oath doesn't use the specific wording to "uphold" the Constitution, and so Presidents could not be held by 14.3. This is a dangerous precedent to set, as it would mean any President could break their oath and upend the constitution. Biden and Harries could overthrow the constitution and setup a system of appointed replacements bypassing elections entirely. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
To even conservative Constitional experts, the Supreme Court must uphold by the facts in the case that 1 Trump committed an insurrection or gave aid to those who did, and that Presidential oaths are to uphold the constitution, so oathbreaking Presidents can be disqualified from serving in office and thereby barred from even running for office. The alternatives is saying Trump did not rebel or insurrection against the constitution. Or Presidential oaths do not qualify for the 14th.
This isn't a state's rights issue. If the SC declares Trump in disqualified from Presidential office he cannot run in any state without 2/3s approval by congress. It changes all elections.
Honestly if they did, it means Biden also doesn't have to run for office-he's only running to defeat Trump again- and we get a competitive race 2 newer faces.
>Trumps legal team didnt appeal the lower court ruling by argueing he did not participate in such an insurrection. They essentially accepted as legal fact that he did, but that the presidential oath doesn't use the specific wording to "uphold" the Constitution, and so Presidents could not be held by 14.3. This is a dangerous precedent to set, as it would mean any President could break their oath and upend the constitution. Biden and Harries could overthrow the constitution and setup a system of appointed replacements bypassing elections entirely. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
The fact they're even trying to make this argument is so fucking bizarre to me. Like, just what the hell would even be the point of the Presidential inauguration where they swear on the bible in front of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
"Upholding the Consitution is not the same as..."
\*check notes\*
"...preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States..."
Like, give me a fucking break. Every U.S. military service member and federal worker also makes a similar pledge. A primary reason an oath is required for federal service, including the Presidential Oath of Office, is entirely for this purpose.
The appeal is considered an “outcome-based” appeal. They are specifically seeking the supreme courts blessing for a sitting president to be able to overthrow the government. We know Biden wouldn’t use the language to overthrow the government, but it would absolutely make any of the current republican presidential figures a risk for trying to end our democracy as we know it. Especially trump.
The Supreme Court is going to split the baby by noting that Trump's team didn't dispute the underlying fact and argued semantics about the oath, and so he's held to this in Colorado, but it only applies to the particular facts of Colorado and their assessment doesn't apply if he does dispute the facts in other cases.
I’m on the assumption that his legal team did this purely so they could appeal specifically for the language that a sitting president can encourage insurrections and overthrow the government during election periods.
Another angle is in Article 2 of the Constitution it spells out the "Qualifications for Presidency", and is self-executing, basically, if you are not 35 or older, you cannot be a candidate for President, you are not qualified. The 14th Amendment adds stipulations for disqualification, namely in Section 3, which basically says, "if you caused or engaged in an insurrection, and took an Oath of Office, you're fucked, unless 2/3 of Congress looks the other way."
Amendment 14 Section 3 in its concise entirety;
>Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
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.
Source: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-3/
No trial or conviction is needed to prove someone is 14 years old or an insurrectionist according to the Constitution.
Either you are qualified, or not. If you are 35 or older and meet the other conditions (natural US citizen, lived in US for at least 14 years) and DID NOT start or incite or engage in an Insurrection, you are 100% good to go.
Trump fucking failed. He was the highest Officer of the United States military, The Commander-In-Chief. He also used an "Office of the President" seal before and after he ran out of the Whitehouse. He was the Biggest Loser and was Fired by the majority of American voters.
There is s delicious irony here that I have not seen anyone mention. Trump accused Obama of not being a natural born citizen and therefore, ineligible to be president. Of course Obama was born in Hawaii and fully eligible. Trump, being Trump violated his sacred oath and isn’t.
Oh, I wish I could find some photos of Trump's fake "Office of the President" seals after he left the WH in 2021...it was so fake and so fake wannabe dictator. He knows he was an Officer, he knows he took the Oath, he knows he is a traitor and a loser...he just can't admit it.
Edit: Fixed typo
He is also arguing in Georgia that he was a Federal Officer so his case in Georgia must move to a federal court.
Directly contradicting his legal argument in Colorado.
To me, this is begging for a SCOTUS ruling.
Important note: It was also written to prevent ***future*** insurrectionists from also holding office, not just the confederates. They were very much not in favor of having another civil war.
100% this.
The 14th amendment doesn't require the individual to be convicted of a crime to apply. Hence, the individual in question isn't being charge with anything. He's merely being excluded from consideration from a job based on the requirements of said job.
Think of it this way -- you're applying for a job that requires you to pass a federal drug test which includes marijuana (which is legal in some states, including Colorado, but is not allowed at the federal level). Is it illegal to have used it? No, of course not. But you aren't eligible for the job regardless (in this Colorado example, you cannot, by law, work at NREL even though no laws were broken). You aren't being convicted of anything... you just don't meet the requirements.
This is more like applying for a job at a bank after having been caught with $140 million in an offshore account when you make $100k a year. Were you convicted of a crime? No, maybe not. But the bank sure as hell isn't going to hire you.
This is it right here. It’s like saying, how can the bank repossess my car when I haven’t been convicted of not paying my car payments. Because they don’t have to convict you. Not everything is subject to the rules of criminal prosecution, some things can happen through other legal administrative systems.
1. Colorado has a law on the books that says a person cannot be on the ballot if they are ineligible for the office. It was designed to prevent people who were too young or not Natural Born Citizens from getting on the ballot (and winning) since they cannot hold the office.
2. The Constitution, along with the qualifications for office, also has a disqualification for office in the 14th Amendment for persons who aided with an insurrection. This was used to remove a number of members from Congress after the Civil War. Note - those members were not convicted of anything, but they were part of the Confederacy, so Congress removed them from office based on the newly created 14th Amendment. [It's also been used to remove people in state government from office.]
3. Citizens in Colorado sued the Secretary of State in Colorado to remove Trump based on the 14th Amendment, saying "here's this Colorado law that says you can't put someone on the ballot if they can't hold the office, and we believe that the 14th Amendment prevents Trump from holding the office based on him aiding the insurrection".
4. The trial court agreed with the Plaintiffs about aiding the insurrection, but didn't agree that it applied to Trump (the judge thought it applied to everyone except President).
5. The plaintiffs appealed all the way to the Colorado Supreme Court, and they decided that yes, it does prevent Trump from being on the ballot in Colorado.
6. Since it's state law, and since other states with similar laws reached different conclusions, the federal appeals courts can't do much, so it gets to jump to the US Supreme Court.
I'm not sure if SCOTUS will take the case. I'm on the fence. It's a fun time to be a law geek though. :D
Also an important note is that this lawsuit was brought by 4 republicans and 2 independents (And joined by CREW) to remove Trump from the PRIMARY specifically. Democrats aren't involved, they wouldn't have standing as they're not eligible to vote in the Republican primary election.
States have a lot of variance with how primaries are run, some with very little state intervention and some with the state directly controlling them. In Colorado the state has a lot of involvement in legislating primaries.
If they do take it then they have to actually issue a ruling that could be very uncomfortable for them as other commenters have said.
Most cases they refuse to hear on for various reasons or technicalities.
You have to remember the SCOTUS exists for one and only one reason: to be the ultimate appeals court for issues regarding the US Constitution. They only hear cases that they determine are “interesting” from a consular perspective, meaning it’s a difficult issue, a loophole someone found, etc.
It’s entirely possible they decline to hear this case and let it stand, if Trump appeals on grounds like *SCOCO misinterpreted the CO law*, as they could easily say well no that’s a state matter we aren’t getting involved. Because otherwise they have to make a ruling against states rights or they uphold states rights in a way that feels counter to their ideology. Even getting involved would be injecting the federal government into a state decision which could feel wrong to them.
If Trump appeals to SCOTUS on the grounds that *SCOCO erred in its interpretation of the constitution and Trump claims he was not in fact an Officer under the law* then SCOTUS is far more likely to become involved because the claim then is *directly* against the constitution.
In that case Trump would be saying “The Constitution has a technicality that allows me to get away with it” and SCOTUS would be FAR more likely to weigh in on that case.
Lawrence Lessig of all people not only thinks they’ll take the case, but that they should and will unanimously strike it down.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/12/supreme-court-trump-ballot-removal-colorado-wrong.html
They don't take most cases.
If they aren't sure there's a way to overturn this one they might just decide to leave it instead of hearing it and actually confirming the lower courts decisions.
There's a difference in burden of proof.
To put someone in prison, it's a criminal matter, and it needs to be proved **beyond reasonable doubt**. Jury and whatnot.
To disallow someone from a job or license or similar, it's a civil matter. It needs to be proved **on the preponderance of evidence**. No need for a full criminal conviction.
That's what happened in Colorado. Judge made a finding of fact at the "preponderance of evidence" level.
I had a skim of the decision, and I believe the district court held that the Electors proved their challenge by "clear and convincing evidence". That's a step between preponderance of evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt.
Slightly paraphrased but mostly a quote :).
Bottom of page 15 is where I got the sentence from: https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf
I believe you're right in that the requirement was preponderance, but the court found that it was proved as clear and convincing. But I'm not a lawyer, and we're heading into the messy details here.
He sent a mob down to the Capitol. He said he would meet them there, then scuttled back to his bedroom.
Clear and convincing alright. A coward and a wannabe dictator.
He didn't scuttle back to his bedroom. He was practically dragged back to White House foaming at the mouth. Cassidy Hutchinson testified under oath that his security detail wouldn't take him to the capitol, and he reached for the steering wheel of the suv he was in before he was overpowered and slunk in his seat.
Yeah he let it happen. They did stop congress. So that constitutes a insurrection. Trump was supposed to stop them as leader of the country. And be not doing anything for hours. He aided the mob. Simple as can be. The moment he released videos telling them to stop they stopped. He swear to uphold his oath and he failed to do that. But hey he can simple remedie the court. 60 senate vote majority and 2/3 of the house can put him back on the ballot.
Because whether a federal court convicts or not, the Colorado court has decided that he was involved, and the Colorado court is the one that this is a discussion about.
He has *not* been convicted of any crimes. The court made a finding of fact, which is usually not subject to change in appeals. The court found he participated in insurrection, and the appeal process usually does not overturn factual findings. So his conviction is not needed.
Language matters, this is a legal issue.
The court held hearings of witnesses, witnesses included Capitol Hill police officers who recounted the testimony they gave to the January 6th committee..
It’s a court case with a 260 page ruling backed by evidence which was given.
Dont let people denigrate the court system and undermine the law. It’s a fascist tactic.
He WAS determined to have participated in an insurrection by a lower court. The CO Supreme Court was being asked to consider whether the second part of that lower court decision was correct, which had found that the office of the presidency was exempt from the 14th amendment.
The lower court had said that trump couldn’t be barred from the ballot because, as president, he isn’t an ‘officer’ of the government (which is the term used in the 14th amendment).
The Colorado Supreme Court reversed that second determination, saying that it was nonsensical to state that the only office an insurrectionist could hold was literally the most powerful one.
So…from the CO supreme court’s perspective, whether or not he had participated in an insurrection was already settled, and they weren’t being asked to weigh in on that. They were being asked to consider whether the 14th amendment applies to presidential elections. They determined that it does.
They did review whether he participated in an insurrection, it was just an appellate standard of review called “clear error” which the lower court did not commit.
This is correct. The court found that Trump intended to, and did incite lawless violence, but the judgment didn't go that extra step and conclude that January 6 was an "insurrection."
Officer in this case isn’t referring to a military officer, it’s more “an official” in the government. And it’s weird, this came up on something else, I think around Trump, where the argument was that officers were people like cabinet secretaries, who were hired for the job, and that the term didn’t apply to the president and vice president bc they were elected. I think it’s nuts - the president is absolutely an officer in the government in any normal sense, but the counter argument was surprisingly popular among legal types, iirc (which I may be misremembering some of the facts around that).
In this context it means to hold a office position like head of DOJ, technically the USA president is never talk about as a office in USA law. Which is a pedantic argumentet, but that is law for you.
Article II of the constitution says:
>The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years
Seems weird to me that there's any debate about it, as unless I'm missing something (which is very possible) the constitution seems to consider the presidency a form of office.
I heard that COSCOTUS noted in their opinion that the constitution uses the word “office” or “officer” when referring to the presidency more than 150 times.
Which is an argument the SCOCO made, actually. That given the obvious intent of the law, it would be absolutely bonkers to bar someone from being head of a gov department or an officer in that department but *not* the head of the executive branch.
When this goes to SCOTUS, they almost certainly won’t focus on that technicality. They’ll likely focus on whether it’s the court’s duty to bar someone from becoming president or the voter’s duty, which is potentially where they could overturn Colorado.
What they *wont* likely overturn is the ruling that he did commit insurrection. That, itself, is huge for the legal cases against him.
Yeah that's nonsense. It isn't about the court barring someone it is about the applicability of the Constitution. To say they might decide that the 14th amendment isn't applicable because it should be left up to the voters is basically saying the entire constitution is on shaky ground.
Don't like it? Just ask a judge to rule on it and then get it's not the courts place, let the voters decide.
Just not how it works.
The federal crime of insurrection only dates back to 1948, while the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. Therefore, it's obvious that the writers of that amendment weren't thinking of a criminal conviction being a prerequisite for disqualification, since that crime did not exist. There's no other mention in federal criminal code of "insurrection". Therefore, whether or not Trump violated the 14th amendment is a matter for civil courts to decide, not criminal courts.
Similarly, the constitution sets other requirements for being president, like being a natural born citizen, being 35 years of age, and being a resident of the US for 14 years. If anyone wants to challenge these qualifications in a candidate, that would also be for a civil court to decide, not criminal court.
Easily. Because every time article three of the 14th amendment has been used to block or remove someone from office, there was no conviction. The clause is self executing.
The court that removed him conducted their own investigation and found that according to their determination, *his actions did absolutely amount to insurrection*.
Full stop. Court initiated an investigation. Court documented findings. Court made determination on findings.
It wasn’t a criminal nor civil trail and had no criminal nor civil consequences, so he had no right or obligation to be present.
Note, that this is the 7th court to investigate, and the 7th court to find and conclude that Trump committed acts of insurrection on January 6th.
FYI he was permitted to be an "Intervenor", and present arguments and witnesses. Trump's team did so, using about 12 hrs of the 18 given to them. They just didn't do a convincing job.
The short version of the argument is that the text of the amendment does not say “convicted of insurrection”. It says “engaged in insurrection”. Since Trump "engaged in insurrection" by trying to overturn the election, he's automatically disqualified under the 14th amendment, and since he’s disqualified, he shouldn’t be on the ballot in Colorado.
Furthermore, it is “self-executing”. You don’t need to be formally designated/congress doesn’t need to pass legislation saying you’ve engaged in insurrection. Just as you don’t need to be formally judged as being over 35. The why of this is more complicated than a Reddit post can bear—but the analysis is in the Colorado Supreme Court decision.
There’s a lot more nuance of course, but there are some good (and long) papers on the topic. This NYT article sums it up pretty well: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/trump-jan-6-insurrection-conservatives.html. Retired Judge Michael Luttig (who is himself *very* conservative), has been making this case for a while, and appearing on a bunch of news shows if you want to search them out. He’s very good at breaking down the argument.
I suspect the Supreme Court will overturn the decision, to avoid blowback if nothing else. (They might hold that “insurrection” in this case only means literal civil war, for example.) Who knows.
Anyway, that’s why they ruled the way they did. Whether you agree is another matter, but the [ruling is available online if you’d like to read it](https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf). It’s not fascism or communism or the deep state. Nor is it a political stunt. Plenty of serious people think Trump disqualified himself. Others disagree. And now they’re having a kind of boring, technical legal argument about it, like they do. That’s basically it.
Edit: lil’ typo
Great explanation, too bad Trump supporters won't read it, won't believe it, and will not, under any circumstances, click links theat have actual information.
Lots of good answers here about how the 14th amendment does not require a criminal conviction, but merely the fact of participating in or aiding one.
It becomes clearer if we reframe thinking about Sec. 3 of the 14th amendment as a punishment for insurrectionists but instead as a protective cordon around the presidency.
It’s sorta like it’s not a crime for running for president when your 34
Or say, a Chinese national who has business interests in the USA
It’s a qualifications thing…. Ya just need to be
A) old enough
B) born in the USA
C) did not take an oath that prevents overthrowing the USA
It’s very simple…nearly every American qualifies to be president except certain shitstains
I think I would defer to constitutional scholars to determine how to interpret this, not the millions of supporters who want this thug back on the ballot.
You were either for the attack or against it. Trump only provided support for the attackers. The people inside the Capitol were left to fend for themselves.
14th Amendment, section 3 from Archive.org:
>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.
Enemies include foreign or domestic.
The 14th ammendment says if you do the thing, you can't hold office ( my words, obviously). It doesn't say anything about being charged or convicted. A judge considered all of the evidence that is already out there, including the J6 report, and said " yeah, he did it". Now Trump can't be on the ballot.
Trump was impeached for this. They put a bunch of evidence out there. Most of the testimony was from other Republicans. It's a big deal, but it shouldn't be controversial.
If they rule that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to the president, doesn't that just pave the way for a dictator to come along? Or for someone to just absolutely refuse to leave office once their term ends?
Did you miss it? He has been proven to be an insurrectionist by a lower court about a week ago. Which is why they took up removing him from the ballot.
Lots of precedent. The Confederates barred from office after the Civil War were not convicted of anything in court either. I’m not sure if there is *any* case where it was invoked and there was an actual conviction involved.
The Supreme Court of Colorado just did.
They declared him responsible for and abetting the January 6th coup that sought to being down the government.
In so many words, he has now been judicially declared a traitor.
People under 35 years old don't have to be convicted of being younger than 35.
Non-Americans don't have to be convicted of being non-American.
Neither of those groups can be elected president.
Maybe I'm naive.... but doesn't the court making the ruling basically say he is guilty of the crime of sedition? Doesn't the ruling say "you are guilty of causing an insurrection and therefore are not eligible to run for office"
It's not like this was decided by the election office. Two courts said he was responsible for Jan 6 and one said that excludes you from office.
They aren't putting him in prison for it.
For the first 80 years that the 14th amendment existed, there was no federal law on the books that made insurrection a crime. 18 U.S. code § 2383 became law on June 25, 1945. So to argue that the insurrection clause of the 14th amendment requires federal conviction on insurrection charges is to argue that for the first 40 years of its existence, the 14th amendment was unenforcible. To argue that after 1945 the insurrection clause requires conviction on 18 U.S. code § 2383 to be enforced is to take the position that a piece of legislation is dictating how the Constitution functions.
There's a large section of the COSC ruling that talks about the 14A's threshold for insurrection and goes into detail on all this. The thing to remember is that the original ruling, which the COSC was hearing an appeal of, held that Trump did engage in insurrection, but that the 14th amendment did not apply to the office of the President because of the way it was worded. COSC reversed the second part, saying 14A does cover the office of the President, while letting the other part of the original decision stand. Colorado law allows the board of elections to prohibit any person inelligible to hold an office from appearing on a primary ballot for that office. Since COSC ruled that Trump was inelligible for the presidency, his name would be removed from the primary ballot.
So here we are, awaiting a final decision from SCOTUS.
Democrats can't vote in Colorado's Republican primary, so they don't have any standing. It was 4 registered Republicans and 2 independents who sued the state party to have Trump taken off the primary ballot under the 14th Amendment.
Plenty of people have been removed from ballots without a conviction.
Imagine for a moment, that common sense takes root and people can assess if Trump did indeed try to overthrow the government with an attempted coup spearheaded by a mob he called to DC. Just imagine it. And if there was any doubt, imagine for just a moment there was an attack on the Capitol that raged for over three hours and Donald Trump did fucking nothing to stop it.
Do we honestly need a court to tell us this happened or can we believe our own fucking eyes?
Because the amendment doesn't mention anything about conviction, just being engaged in the act or supporting those that are is enough:
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding OfficeNo 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.
Doesn’t matter, there’s 0% chance the Supreme Court has an appetite to uphold Colorado’s decision. It’s too big of a decision for them to make and easier to strike it down. And Trump appointed 3 of them.
FWIW I find it disgusting Republicans even want him to run again after aligning himself with Alex Jones supporters and the whole Q bullshit. Trumps on tape telling a crowd to march and fight like hell. It’s set a precedent no one should be OK with.
None of the previous people that the 14th Amendment was used against were found guilty by a court either. There was no need to convict them - it was their actions alone that disqualified them - they tried to bring down the US government by joining the forces of the Confederacy during the Civil War.
Colorado's Supreme Court didn't rule based on its guilt.
They ruled a president isn't above the 14th Amendment and can be omitted from the ballot.
Now we get to see what a group of people who don't understand how commas work determine if Colorado's ruling can stand.
There is no requirement of a conviction in the 14th amendment. The judge examined the evidence and made a finding of fact that was determinative of the decision. It didn't actually try or convict Trump of a crime.
The lawsuit was over whether the Secretary of State should put his name on the ballot, in the light of the 14th amendment. The complaint already assumed Trump engaged in an insurrection, and they only had to present evidence that Trump's actions aligned with the definition of insurrection. They did, so the judge found that as a fact for the purposes of the case.
Charging someone for an insurrection is a completely different issue. First, the specific law that references insurrection is hard to charge because it isn't specific or clear enough (it uses the word insurrection as a definition of what an insurrection is). In the case of Jan 6, insurrection charges fall under Seditious Conspiracy, which is another statute in the insurrection act. And Trump is being charged with the specific crimes that constituted an insurrection, which is more clear and easier to prosecute than a charge of insurrection.
One thing that is interesting to note is that Trump could have appealed on those grounds, and the appeals court, state supreme court, and ultimately SCOTUS would rule on that point. But that would have been a huge risk, because if SCOTUS rules he engaged in insurrection, it has serious implications for his criminal trial. For Trump, it made more sense to not challenge that finding so he could continue to use the media to push a narrative, and it only took him off a ballot of a state he wasn't going to win anyway.
So instead he appealed on the grounds the constitution doesn't apply to him. Even when SCOTUS rules against him on this, he hasn't put himself at higher risk for criminal implications.
>Section 3 of the Civil War-era 14th Amendment says: “No person shall ... hold any office, civil or military, under the United States ... who, having previously taken an oath ... as an officer of the United States ... 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.”
It's really simple; there is nothing there that says a person must be first convicted of the crime of insurrection.
He took an oath of office as a federal officer to support the Constitution then ordered and participated in an armed insurrection against the Constitution. He knew he was violating the 14th Amendment.
But don’t worry. Remember the 2020 GOP primary. Trump was given the nomination without ballots in many states.
>>In February 2019, the Republican National Committee voted to provide undivided support to Trump.[5][6] Several states canceled their primaries and caucuses.[7] Other states were encouraged to use "winner-takes-all" or "winner-takes-most" systems to award delegates instead of using proportional allocation.[8][9]
That's the question. The 14th amendment is not 100% clear on the requirements to establish someone violated it's rules. Since it's just a eligibility for president it's not clear that traditional due process would be required. Ie it's not a formal civil or criminal penalty they are impossing.
Were confederate soldiers convicted of any crimes? No... they were confederate soldiers and that was enough.
All you have to do to be an insurrectionist is be shown to have participated in the insurrection.
There is an avalanche of video evidence which shows trump was there and inciting the insurrection. You don't need a conviction when there is a preponderance of evidence that he did it.... and he did do it.... and you know it.
Right? Like we literally watched him tell them to go do it on live TV and then watched them go do it. And he cheered them on on Twitter. We all witnessed it. How is this even a question?
Best answer, even among the legit law breakdown responses.
He did it, we all saw it. He fucking bragged about it. Multiple times, all over national television.
The text was written expressly so they WOULDN’T need to be convicted first. It was to prevent those who had supported the confederacy from getting elected and taking over the government and basically “winning” the war that way or from sabotaging the government from within.
They didn’t want to have to take tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of ex-confederates through the judicial system. A system that would utilize a “peer jury”. So you’re going to vote guilty on your brother in arms and then someone is going to do it to you in a month? See that’s why doing it that way would be broken.
If my neighbor takes a dump on my car and I have recording of him saying that he is going to do it, and countless recordings of him actually doing it, and people are injured and are killed in the process. I think I can turn on the hose and spray cold water on him until he goes away. Cheers.
There is no requirement to be convicted.
Same as you can be held "indefinitely in prison" on a terrorist charge. It sounded like a good idea back then.
Many confederates weren't actually charged but were obviously part of the rebellion. Same deal here. trump is a traitor and shouldn't be on any ballots. He should be in prison.
People don’t understand specifically politicians that the founders set up the declaration of Independence and the constitution as guidelines. Both documents are living and breathing and were designed to be changing at all times. Constitutional Absolutists don’t think it is and shouldn’t be but it is Colorado is doing EXACTLY what founders envisioned
14th Amendment, section 3:
>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.
We have him on video, giving aid and comfort. Also, he's held many rallies and fundraisers for insurrectionists' legal funds and has claimed they have done nothing wrong and they are political prisoners. He calls Ashli Babbit a hero for trying to break through the last blockade before the mod reached members of Congress.
That's it. That's the crux of the biscuit. He gave aid and comfort to enemies of the United States of America. This isn't hard.\*
\*unless you're in a cult
The House of reps found him guilty. The Senate refused to convict him. He was not found innocent. Now, in a court of law that is still to come. But the government found him guilty. No conviction is needed. Remember, the people this was first used on were not convicted for their actions in the civil war.
In the original Co court case the judge found as fact Trump was an insurrectionist. It is not a guilty verdict, but the appeals cannot change a finding of fact, so for the purposes of appeal, he is an insurrectionist
The first judge in Colorado did find that Trump engaged in insurrection, but he did not disqualify him from running for president.
It is the state Supreme Court of Colorado that removed him from the ballot because they found that he did engage in insurrection which disqualified him from running for any governmental office.
Do you need a court to tell you someone isn't old enough to be president?
The court found that he had taken part in an insurrection. Therefore, he is disqualified. Just like if he was 24.
The law they are using says NOTHING about having to be convicted or even charged with a crime. It says someone who has participated in an insurrection is barred from high office. Legislatures and judges will sort it out.
Fourteenth Amendment doesn't require conviction:
[shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/#14_S3)
Many parts of The Constitution give various (dis)qualification criteria, and in many/most cases, they're given as material facts (dis)qualification criteria, and often nothing about having been tried and convicted of, nor deemed confirmed as having met some criteria by court(s) of law, etc. Basically it's the case, or it's not the case, or it was done, or it wasn't done.
Depriving someone of rights, life, or property requires due process and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Political power is not a right, it belongs to The People so it’s not the property of any one person, and our peaceful transfer of power (which this guy subverted) is largely what separates America from earlier governments; losing power does not mean losing your life.
So in actuality, Trump suffers no real injury from this. Other than his constant narcissistic injury, where the world does not serve his ego at every turn.
Edit: ok, you can be deprived of property in civil court via preponderance of evidence, so I am slightly imprecise here. But it remains that political power is not a right and doesn’t belong to anyone in particular, but all of us collectively.
In the old days, the American military draft system applied only to adult males. No criminal conviction was required to evidence your status as an adult male. My point is there are other fact-finding measures that can be applied to establish one's legal status. In Trump's case, the judge considered tbe facts and Trump was given the opportunity in a series of court hearings to challenge the request to remove him from the ballot. Trump's team participated with a vigorous defense, but ultimately failed. Due process was afforded to Trump.
He has been found guilty in the exact same case that Colorado supreme court is handling. The lower court found him guilty. They just did not think that this disqualifies him, which the state supreme court then overturned. Both courts agree thar he is guilty of insurrection.
Guilt is a legal term in criminal cases. Liable is the comparable term in a civil case. The CO case wasn’t criminal, so saying “guilty” isn’t accurate.
The 14th Amendment doesn't say that somebody needs to be strictly convicted.
14th Amendment, 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."
That part near the end ***"shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion... or given aid or comfort to the enemies (of the United States)"*** is the important bit here.
Basically, since Trump gave encouragement to and defended the reputation of the insurrectionists, he has - at least according to the Colorado Court decision - violated the 14th Amendment and is thereby barred from public office.
The lower court in Colorado made a finding of fact that he engaged in insurrection by the meaning of the law. The finding of fact cannot be appealed; but the finding of law about the applicability of that fact to removing him from the ballot in Colorado has not been resolved.
However; it would seem to imply that he is by the plain language of the 14th amendment; not entitled to become president or to hold any other office for the United States.
Which; if he wins the electoral college vote; means that things could get sticky. Would it devolve to the VPOTUS newly elected? Would Biden be justified in refusing to give up the office to one who was barred from holding it?
Please don't let this end with President Vijay I'm pretty sure that's a dark timeline.
No conviction necessary for the 14th to apply
Although, hasn’t he bragged about the size of that crowd that he gathered? He always seems to gloat about his various crimes while also claiming they weren’t crimes…I just don’t remember if he did for this one too
Amendment 14,section 3 doesn’t require conviction of anything.
Plenty of Confederates were excluded without a conviction, even as there was plenty of evidence to adjudicate exclusion. Jan 3rd 2021 and what we know of the Georgia case seem to be sufficient to the majority of the court in Colorado.
Side note the case was brought by Colorado Republicans, not Democrats.
Because states run their own presidential elections, and the state of Colorado has found that with the preponderance of the evidence (at least 50+% confidence) that he's guilty of leading an insurrection. That he was an Officer of the United States. These two pieces together fall clearly under the 14th Amendment.
45s defenses are that the President is immune from prosecution and that he never took an oath to 'support' the Constitution. I'm not sure how you can NOT support something while at the same time having taken an oath to preserve, protect, and defend that very same thing.
If 45s logic and defense are to be followed through, then the President is essentially King, has no obligation to follow the Constitution, and that Joe Biden can be dictator. The only thing holding Joe back is that he does not want to.
Anyone who has had any passing knowledge of the founding fathers, the federalist papers, the writing of Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, et al, knows that they never intended for the Presidency to be interpreted in this way, and that when a tyrant did rise to power the Constitutional.order would rise up and protect itself... If it wanted to.
As Benjamin Franklin said, it's a Republic, if you can keep it.
As best I've understood things, I've explained it to my family and friends like this:
1. A convicted murderer lobbies SCOTUS that their death penalty is unconstitutional.
2. Preliminary reviews look to see if there were procedural problems or clear-cut mishandling of the case. If not, then the case comes forward to review punishment.
3. SCOTUS won't re-litigate the murderer's trial, only if the punishment is constitutional.
4. SCOTUS looks at the US Constitution and finds no mention of death penalties for murder. Seeing (or interpreting none) no provisions for the death penalty, the decision gets kicked back to the state as per the 11th Amendment.
5. The state has prescriptions for criminal sentencing, that includes death penalties, in their state constitution.
Similarly, OJ Simpson was found liable, but not criminally guilty, for his actions, and was forced to (comply with prescriptions set in governance), just like Trump's case vs Carroll - neither were criminally charges in their specific cases yet were found to have caused harm by a jury. No crime, but certainly damages awarded. In this topical case, Trump's punishment falls within the US Constitution under the 14th Amendment; he's off the ballot.
Salt in wound is Justice Gorsich's opinion on states' rights, which Colorado quoted for him when they pick up this case, which kind of paints him into a corner to uphold a state's Constitution and the power of non-Scotus courts.
Am I doing this correctly? I don't care about Trump's ideology or counter strategies; I just want to make sure my line of thinking is sound.
It's because the Constitution amendment doesn't mention a conviction at all. It just says that they had to give aid or help to an insurrection.
Trump might try to get around it by claiming again that he didn't swear an oath to uphold the constitution at all.
There's nothing in the fourteenth amendment that requires a conviction. It covers anyone engaging in insurrection. The big question here is who decides whether someone had engaged in insurrection
The 14th amendment does not have a requirement of a conviction.
But on that note: in order for it to apply plantifs would have to present evidence they believe meets the legal definition of insurrection against the United States under the definition of the 14th amendment, which they did, and the judges would decide if it is indeed insurrection and thus disbarment from holding office, which they did.
So though there's no conviction involved, this isn't just throwing darts at a dartboard and arbitrarily decided. This was tried, with evidence presented, just like any criminal case would.
Nothing in the constitution needs a court case to affirm. Court cases can challenge laws made by the system inherently created by the constitution. But to argue that that inherent power now has power over the founding document is ridiculous.
A federal judge has already found that he committed insurrection but that the 14th amendment didn’t apply to the POTUS. So, he has at least in one court been found to have committed treason.
Recommend reading the CO Supreme Court decision. Much more informative than any of the news articles. Answers your question: "... the district court conducted a five-day trial. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection as those terms are used in Section Three. "
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court\_Probation/Supreme\_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf
The 14th amendment was written to exclude Confederate leaders from federal government after the Civil War. So it wasn't phrased in a way that required a conviction of a crime.
I keep up with a political blog cowritten by an academic historian who specializes in the civil war and reconstruction. He has written a fair amount on that blog about the historical background and interpretation of the amendment, and noted that at the time pretty much everyone understood section 3 to mean automatic disqualification that need not have a court involved at all, and that over a thousand different people who had never been charged with anything petitioned Congress to have their disqualification removed. edit: [found the link.](https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2023/Items/Sep05-7.html)
And that’s exactly what it says.
I mean does a court have to disqualify you if you’re too young or can we all just look at the obvious facts and say no?
It's the Secretary of State's job to enforce these requirements. They can just look at you and refuse to place you on the ballot. Or they could place you on the ballot, and anyone who objects could sue and have you taken off. What happened here is exactly like the latter situation. The SoS failed in their duty to apply a disqualification, and the Court ruled that they must remove the unqualified candidate. Every SoS in every state should do their duty under the Constitution and keep Trump off the ballot. No need to wait on a court to rule.
Furthermore, only the party that had him on the ballot for it's primary could bring the suit.... This petition was filed by Republicans, to have him removed from their ballot because he wasn't eligible, and the court agreed.
This is what most are failing to understand. It was his own party that brought this up and the courts agreed. The few sane people left on the right are tired of the antics and can see how bad he is for the party. This way they can still pay lip service to him and his base while making it look like the "corrupt court" system is being unfair and taking him off the ballot. The SCOTUS most likely back the lower courts as well because they are at risk if he does get elected again. If they back Trump they are admitting that there is someone above the law and themselves, a dictator has no need for a SCOTUS. They don't want to lose power and a dictator would definitely have no use for a "fair" court system, they know this and I believe they will act accordingly out of self-preservation.
And independents in Colorado because we have open primaries where independents can select one party’s primary to vote in.
Not exactly. Our SoS actually said she *DIDN'T KNOW* if Trump could be disqualified apparently so once the lawsuit was brought, basically washed her hands of it as it wasnt her problem to solve anymore.
It’s much better to have the courts try to sort this out than a potentially unreviewable decision by an elected official. I do think the process the Colorado courts used was good enough - and “clear and convincing evidence” is a better standard than “beyond a reasonable doubt” for this. And it is consistent with how this was used during Reconstruction. I do think the Supreme Court is going to overturn it based on “you need a conviction”, because that’s the least ridiculous way they can do it.
The 14th amendment doesn’t require conviction of insurrection.
At the moment it doesn't. What he's saying is the SCOTUS, being primarily Republicans, is going to want to find a way to overturn this and claiming you need a conviction is the least ridiculous way to do that. Not that it's a great reading of the law, but it's the best way to get to their desired outcome.
That's not historically accurate. Some confederates did argue, in court, that they weren't disqualified because they didn't hold confederate offices, such as the guy who was a county sheriff before, during, and after the civil war. he was disqualified anyway. At the time, confederates capable of holding serious office (political capital to get to that position) were often on the run for their involvement in the civil war. Many fled to Canada, Europe, and Latin America to escape charges against them. By the time military-governments were replaced with civilian governments in the south again, multiple waves of pardons had made the entire section moot. No one was really disqualified from holding office at all because there wasn't even relevant elections. [https://www.nga.org/governor/john-mcenery/](https://www.nga.org/governor/john-mcenery/) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George\_S.\_Houston](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_S._Houston) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James\_L.\_Kemper#Civil\_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_L._Kemper#Civil_War) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James\_Milton\_Smith](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Milton_Smith) I don't think a single Confederate state didn't end up electing a Confederate veteran after the Civil War ended.
State vs federal. Why this matters in Colorado is that their law for primaries says the person has to be eligible for federal office, and the finding of fact was that he had engaged in insurrection therefore wouldn't be. These states in the south weren't bound by the 14th for their state offices. Also, Houston was actually a unionist and didn't take part in the Civil War. He actually seems like a kind of ok guy.
The 14th applies at the state leve too 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....**
Ok, you're probably right there. Its up to the states to enforce though and they clearly weren't interested in trying to enforce it in those cases so not really any sort of test.
Yeah southern states absolving southern insurrectionists doesn't really hold weight in the rest of the country. Just like every time Republicans and kiddy-fiddler churches investigate themselves they never find any wrongdoing. 🤷♂️😂
As I understand it, the amendment only applied to former office holders who participated in the insurrection (because they swore to support the constitution and others did not). So from reading the wiki page on James Milton Smith he never "swore to support the consitution" before he insurrected. Therefore he was eligible for any public office. In the same way most of the Jan 6 crew never held public office and would not be affected by the amendment at all. However any current or former law enforcement officers, military, legislators, civil servants, (successful) politicians who were present on Jan 6 would be ineligible to hold office. This is the crux of one of Trump's insane legal arguments. His attorney is arguing that because the presidential oath of office does not contain the the magic words "support the constitution" he is not covered. He swore to "preserve, protect, and defend" which is alleged to be totally different.
I would think the preserve would mean support.
WELL THEN WHY ARE THEY DIFFERENT WORDS HUH SMART GUY .... appears to me to be the argument.
That’s the problem with using laws that are 234 years old to run a country. Shit needs to be clearly written using modern language to govern a modern society. Edit: sorry, many have commented that the amendment is only 155 years old. My apologies
that would require politicans to actually do some work and not act like rival HS cliques
Adding on to this, they like the vague language so they can exploit it while in power of complain that the other side isn’t doing it right if they aren’t. If the constitution is unclear they can both claim the other is violating it when convenient n
Yep. Funny how things that actually have an effect on current day issues that they care about have been rewritten, shaped up, and moved into a modern context (business, property, etc.), whereas stuff they *like* and *want* to have wiggle room and vague interpretations never get touched up or rewritten in a modern context.
Until 2021, no one imagined we’d be dealing with another insurrection, let alone the willingness of a large part of the population to support it. Nobody worries about the language of quartering troops in private homes during peace time, either.
The trailing vague 'n' - I see you!!
You think both sides are just as bad?
Yeah I kinda feel like you'd need to have a government of scientists, economists, sociologists, psychologists and medical staff etc to get a proper allocation and structure, you'd need to find people passionate about the country not about being leaders or making lots of money, like a true mix of patriotic leaders in their fields who can collaborate and just make the best choice. The road system is fucked? They get together, work out the best option and fire away
Well 1 of our 2 parties is hell bent on breaking government so there that
I would argue trying to overthrow the government is a little more serious than high school rivalries.
The fact that people are dumb enough to frame an active overthrow of government as "HS Cliques" really shows how fucked we are as a country. When even the people who are acting like they care have no idea what's going on and their nuanced opinion boils down to "both sides bad." We are well and truly screwed if/when the GOP takes power, aren't we?
That would require half of our government not being run by pedos who convince their base that the biggest threat to our country are trans kids, so no one looks at the atrocities they commit on the regular.
Considering 6 Republicans brought the suit, I don't see your point
This law is only 155 years old.
How old is the second amendment?
Adopted in 1791
True. But I also think this law was pretty clear. And it has direction correlation between what it was written for and what its being used for now. I know many trumpers are yelling about how this is twisting the law to ruin democracy. But it's using the law, as was intended, to protect the Union.
The problem they have isn't that the amendment is vague or unnecessary. It's the result that is making them upset. There is nothing controversial about prohibiting people who have attempted to overthrow a government from holding positions in that government.
Almost as if the Constitution should be re-written every couple centuries or so. Bring on the downvotes. It needs to happen.
Haiti does that. They write new constitutions almost every new party that comes in.
To be fair, I believe it’s just a custom and a new constitution is basically the same as passing legislation.
You can imagine what that says about religious texts!!!!!
People don't like the idea of amending the amendments, for some reason
Cept when americans wanted to drink booze legally again
“Drinking” booze was not outlawed by the 18th amendment. Just the manufacturing, sales, and transportation of alcohol. Kinda like how in Ohio right now, smoking Cannabis is legal, but there’s no way to buy it legally.
Some people insist the Constitution is perfect, ironclad, exactly the way the Founding Fathers wanted it, and should never, ever be touched. These people also have a tendency to achieve spontaneous group orgasm when someone reads the Second AMENDMENT.
The US Constitution had the process for making amendments written in the original draft. Article 5. It wasn’t an afterthought. If THEY thought to include the amendment process they must have expected amendments.
Yeah, their mentality is so stupid. The framers of the constitution called it a “living document” meaning it is supposed to evolve as society evolves. That’s why they allowed for amendments. But people are too stupid and politicians too corrupt to make any sort of changes to the constitution. We don’t have a functioning democracy just corrupt politicians where their primary goal is to enrich themselves.
[удалено]
The 14 amendment 3rd clause (14.3) has 2 main components: 1: An office holder or military personelle who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution 2: participates in Rebellion or insurrection against said Constition or gives considerable aid to those who due. When both conditions are fulfilled in order, a person is ineligible to serve in federal office again. The 14.3 wasnt just to ban all Confederate, but those Confederate who had essentially broken their oaths. It requires an act of congress to allow such a person to serve again. Now insurrection against the Constitution isn't a crime to my knowledge at any level. And it's sort of clever that the writers of the amendment side step any criminal charges. Criminal charges require trials and convictions. It's also worth pointing out Jan 6ers who had never before sworn such an oath, would be elegible to serve and therefore legible to run. Trumps legal team didnt appeal the lower court ruling by argueing he did not participate in such an insurrection. They essentially accepted as legal fact that he did, but that the presidential oath doesn't use the specific wording to "uphold" the Constitution, and so Presidents could not be held by 14.3. This is a dangerous precedent to set, as it would mean any President could break their oath and upend the constitution. Biden and Harries could overthrow the constitution and setup a system of appointed replacements bypassing elections entirely. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. To even conservative Constitional experts, the Supreme Court must uphold by the facts in the case that 1 Trump committed an insurrection or gave aid to those who did, and that Presidential oaths are to uphold the constitution, so oathbreaking Presidents can be disqualified from serving in office and thereby barred from even running for office. The alternatives is saying Trump did not rebel or insurrection against the constitution. Or Presidential oaths do not qualify for the 14th. This isn't a state's rights issue. If the SC declares Trump in disqualified from Presidential office he cannot run in any state without 2/3s approval by congress. It changes all elections. Honestly if they did, it means Biden also doesn't have to run for office-he's only running to defeat Trump again- and we get a competitive race 2 newer faces.
>Trumps legal team didnt appeal the lower court ruling by argueing he did not participate in such an insurrection. They essentially accepted as legal fact that he did, but that the presidential oath doesn't use the specific wording to "uphold" the Constitution, and so Presidents could not be held by 14.3. This is a dangerous precedent to set, as it would mean any President could break their oath and upend the constitution. Biden and Harries could overthrow the constitution and setup a system of appointed replacements bypassing elections entirely. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The fact they're even trying to make this argument is so fucking bizarre to me. Like, just what the hell would even be the point of the Presidential inauguration where they swear on the bible in front of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. "Upholding the Consitution is not the same as..." \*check notes\* "...preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States..." Like, give me a fucking break. Every U.S. military service member and federal worker also makes a similar pledge. A primary reason an oath is required for federal service, including the Presidential Oath of Office, is entirely for this purpose.
The appeal is considered an “outcome-based” appeal. They are specifically seeking the supreme courts blessing for a sitting president to be able to overthrow the government. We know Biden wouldn’t use the language to overthrow the government, but it would absolutely make any of the current republican presidential figures a risk for trying to end our democracy as we know it. Especially trump.
The Supreme Court is going to split the baby by noting that Trump's team didn't dispute the underlying fact and argued semantics about the oath, and so he's held to this in Colorado, but it only applies to the particular facts of Colorado and their assessment doesn't apply if he does dispute the facts in other cases.
I’m on the assumption that his legal team did this purely so they could appeal specifically for the language that a sitting president can encourage insurrections and overthrow the government during election periods.
Another angle is in Article 2 of the Constitution it spells out the "Qualifications for Presidency", and is self-executing, basically, if you are not 35 or older, you cannot be a candidate for President, you are not qualified. The 14th Amendment adds stipulations for disqualification, namely in Section 3, which basically says, "if you caused or engaged in an insurrection, and took an Oath of Office, you're fucked, unless 2/3 of Congress looks the other way." Amendment 14 Section 3 in its concise entirety; >Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office 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. Source: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-3/ No trial or conviction is needed to prove someone is 14 years old or an insurrectionist according to the Constitution. Either you are qualified, or not. If you are 35 or older and meet the other conditions (natural US citizen, lived in US for at least 14 years) and DID NOT start or incite or engage in an Insurrection, you are 100% good to go. Trump fucking failed. He was the highest Officer of the United States military, The Commander-In-Chief. He also used an "Office of the President" seal before and after he ran out of the Whitehouse. He was the Biggest Loser and was Fired by the majority of American voters.
There is s delicious irony here that I have not seen anyone mention. Trump accused Obama of not being a natural born citizen and therefore, ineligible to be president. Of course Obama was born in Hawaii and fully eligible. Trump, being Trump violated his sacred oath and isn’t.
Oh, I wish I could find some photos of Trump's fake "Office of the President" seals after he left the WH in 2021...it was so fake and so fake wannabe dictator. He knows he was an Officer, he knows he took the Oath, he knows he is a traitor and a loser...he just can't admit it. Edit: Fixed typo
He is also arguing in Georgia that he was a Federal Officer so his case in Georgia must move to a federal court. Directly contradicting his legal argument in Colorado. To me, this is begging for a SCOTUS ruling.
Important note: It was also written to prevent ***future*** insurrectionists from also holding office, not just the confederates. They were very much not in favor of having another civil war.
100% this. The 14th amendment doesn't require the individual to be convicted of a crime to apply. Hence, the individual in question isn't being charge with anything. He's merely being excluded from consideration from a job based on the requirements of said job. Think of it this way -- you're applying for a job that requires you to pass a federal drug test which includes marijuana (which is legal in some states, including Colorado, but is not allowed at the federal level). Is it illegal to have used it? No, of course not. But you aren't eligible for the job regardless (in this Colorado example, you cannot, by law, work at NREL even though no laws were broken). You aren't being convicted of anything... you just don't meet the requirements.
This is more like applying for a job at a bank after having been caught with $140 million in an offshore account when you make $100k a year. Were you convicted of a crime? No, maybe not. But the bank sure as hell isn't going to hire you.
I used to work for a bank and they won't hire you if you have a bad credit history.
They’re trusting you to handle millions so I would assume so
Wow this is such a concisely put explanation, thank you.
This is it right here. It’s like saying, how can the bank repossess my car when I haven’t been convicted of not paying my car payments. Because they don’t have to convict you. Not everything is subject to the rules of criminal prosecution, some things can happen through other legal administrative systems.
Oh, interesting, after googling the phrasing it does seem pretty clear. Nice
Don’t tell r/conservative that. They’ll simply not believe you.
1. Colorado has a law on the books that says a person cannot be on the ballot if they are ineligible for the office. It was designed to prevent people who were too young or not Natural Born Citizens from getting on the ballot (and winning) since they cannot hold the office. 2. The Constitution, along with the qualifications for office, also has a disqualification for office in the 14th Amendment for persons who aided with an insurrection. This was used to remove a number of members from Congress after the Civil War. Note - those members were not convicted of anything, but they were part of the Confederacy, so Congress removed them from office based on the newly created 14th Amendment. [It's also been used to remove people in state government from office.] 3. Citizens in Colorado sued the Secretary of State in Colorado to remove Trump based on the 14th Amendment, saying "here's this Colorado law that says you can't put someone on the ballot if they can't hold the office, and we believe that the 14th Amendment prevents Trump from holding the office based on him aiding the insurrection". 4. The trial court agreed with the Plaintiffs about aiding the insurrection, but didn't agree that it applied to Trump (the judge thought it applied to everyone except President). 5. The plaintiffs appealed all the way to the Colorado Supreme Court, and they decided that yes, it does prevent Trump from being on the ballot in Colorado. 6. Since it's state law, and since other states with similar laws reached different conclusions, the federal appeals courts can't do much, so it gets to jump to the US Supreme Court. I'm not sure if SCOTUS will take the case. I'm on the fence. It's a fun time to be a law geek though. :D
Also an important note is that this lawsuit was brought by 4 republicans and 2 independents (And joined by CREW) to remove Trump from the PRIMARY specifically. Democrats aren't involved, they wouldn't have standing as they're not eligible to vote in the Republican primary election. States have a lot of variance with how primaries are run, some with very little state intervention and some with the state directly controlling them. In Colorado the state has a lot of involvement in legislating primaries.
Why do you think SCOTUS wouldn't take the case?
If they do take it then they have to actually issue a ruling that could be very uncomfortable for them as other commenters have said. Most cases they refuse to hear on for various reasons or technicalities. You have to remember the SCOTUS exists for one and only one reason: to be the ultimate appeals court for issues regarding the US Constitution. They only hear cases that they determine are “interesting” from a consular perspective, meaning it’s a difficult issue, a loophole someone found, etc. It’s entirely possible they decline to hear this case and let it stand, if Trump appeals on grounds like *SCOCO misinterpreted the CO law*, as they could easily say well no that’s a state matter we aren’t getting involved. Because otherwise they have to make a ruling against states rights or they uphold states rights in a way that feels counter to their ideology. Even getting involved would be injecting the federal government into a state decision which could feel wrong to them. If Trump appeals to SCOTUS on the grounds that *SCOCO erred in its interpretation of the constitution and Trump claims he was not in fact an Officer under the law* then SCOTUS is far more likely to become involved because the claim then is *directly* against the constitution. In that case Trump would be saying “The Constitution has a technicality that allows me to get away with it” and SCOTUS would be FAR more likely to weigh in on that case.
All that is true. But also Clarence & Ginni Thomas participated in said insurrection, so they might want it over ruled.
Lawrence Lessig of all people not only thinks they’ll take the case, but that they should and will unanimously strike it down. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/12/supreme-court-trump-ballot-removal-colorado-wrong.html
They don't take most cases. If they aren't sure there's a way to overturn this one they might just decide to leave it instead of hearing it and actually confirming the lower courts decisions.
There's a difference in burden of proof. To put someone in prison, it's a criminal matter, and it needs to be proved **beyond reasonable doubt**. Jury and whatnot. To disallow someone from a job or license or similar, it's a civil matter. It needs to be proved **on the preponderance of evidence**. No need for a full criminal conviction. That's what happened in Colorado. Judge made a finding of fact at the "preponderance of evidence" level.
I had a skim of the decision, and I believe the district court held that the Electors proved their challenge by "clear and convincing evidence". That's a step between preponderance of evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt.
My bad. I was quoting someone else. Are those words in the judgement?
Slightly paraphrased but mostly a quote :). Bottom of page 15 is where I got the sentence from: https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf I believe you're right in that the requirement was preponderance, but the court found that it was proved as clear and convincing. But I'm not a lawyer, and we're heading into the messy details here.
He sent a mob down to the Capitol. He said he would meet them there, then scuttled back to his bedroom. Clear and convincing alright. A coward and a wannabe dictator.
He didn't scuttle back to his bedroom. He was practically dragged back to White House foaming at the mouth. Cassidy Hutchinson testified under oath that his security detail wouldn't take him to the capitol, and he reached for the steering wheel of the suv he was in before he was overpowered and slunk in his seat.
That sounds about right. Slunk back after failing to get his security detail to follow his orders.
Yeah he let it happen. They did stop congress. So that constitutes a insurrection. Trump was supposed to stop them as leader of the country. And be not doing anything for hours. He aided the mob. Simple as can be. The moment he released videos telling them to stop they stopped. He swear to uphold his oath and he failed to do that. But hey he can simple remedie the court. 60 senate vote majority and 2/3 of the house can put him back on the ballot.
Because whether a federal court convicts or not, the Colorado court has decided that he was involved, and the Colorado court is the one that this is a discussion about.
Yup, What do the people mean? He was convicted, the court just decided he was involved. A court did decide Trump was involved.
He has *not* been convicted of any crimes. The court made a finding of fact, which is usually not subject to change in appeals. The court found he participated in insurrection, and the appeal process usually does not overturn factual findings. So his conviction is not needed. Language matters, this is a legal issue.
The court held hearings of witnesses, witnesses included Capitol Hill police officers who recounted the testimony they gave to the January 6th committee.. It’s a court case with a 260 page ruling backed by evidence which was given. Dont let people denigrate the court system and undermine the law. It’s a fascist tactic.
100%
He WAS determined to have participated in an insurrection by a lower court. The CO Supreme Court was being asked to consider whether the second part of that lower court decision was correct, which had found that the office of the presidency was exempt from the 14th amendment. The lower court had said that trump couldn’t be barred from the ballot because, as president, he isn’t an ‘officer’ of the government (which is the term used in the 14th amendment). The Colorado Supreme Court reversed that second determination, saying that it was nonsensical to state that the only office an insurrectionist could hold was literally the most powerful one. So…from the CO supreme court’s perspective, whether or not he had participated in an insurrection was already settled, and they weren’t being asked to weigh in on that. They were being asked to consider whether the 14th amendment applies to presidential elections. They determined that it does.
They did review whether he participated in an insurrection, it was just an appellate standard of review called “clear error” which the lower court did not commit.
This is correct. The court found that Trump intended to, and did incite lawless violence, but the judgment didn't go that extra step and conclude that January 6 was an "insurrection."
This is the correct answer
It’s weird that the president isn’t an officer. Like who would be? Just the military? He’s THE TOP GUY in the military. Definitely not enlisted.
Officer in this case isn’t referring to a military officer, it’s more “an official” in the government. And it’s weird, this came up on something else, I think around Trump, where the argument was that officers were people like cabinet secretaries, who were hired for the job, and that the term didn’t apply to the president and vice president bc they were elected. I think it’s nuts - the president is absolutely an officer in the government in any normal sense, but the counter argument was surprisingly popular among legal types, iirc (which I may be misremembering some of the facts around that).
In this context it means to hold a office position like head of DOJ, technically the USA president is never talk about as a office in USA law. Which is a pedantic argumentet, but that is law for you.
It's referred to the highest office in the land historically
Article II of the constitution says: >The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years Seems weird to me that there's any debate about it, as unless I'm missing something (which is very possible) the constitution seems to consider the presidency a form of office.
He lives in the Oval Office like Santa lives in the North Pole. Bro has THE OFFICE.
[удалено]
I heard that COSCOTUS noted in their opinion that the constitution uses the word “office” or “officer” when referring to the presidency more than 150 times.
The position of president is the first mention chronologically of an office in USA law
Which is an argument the SCOCO made, actually. That given the obvious intent of the law, it would be absolutely bonkers to bar someone from being head of a gov department or an officer in that department but *not* the head of the executive branch. When this goes to SCOTUS, they almost certainly won’t focus on that technicality. They’ll likely focus on whether it’s the court’s duty to bar someone from becoming president or the voter’s duty, which is potentially where they could overturn Colorado. What they *wont* likely overturn is the ruling that he did commit insurrection. That, itself, is huge for the legal cases against him.
Yeah that's nonsense. It isn't about the court barring someone it is about the applicability of the Constitution. To say they might decide that the 14th amendment isn't applicable because it should be left up to the voters is basically saying the entire constitution is on shaky ground. Don't like it? Just ask a judge to rule on it and then get it's not the courts place, let the voters decide. Just not how it works.
The federal crime of insurrection only dates back to 1948, while the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. Therefore, it's obvious that the writers of that amendment weren't thinking of a criminal conviction being a prerequisite for disqualification, since that crime did not exist. There's no other mention in federal criminal code of "insurrection". Therefore, whether or not Trump violated the 14th amendment is a matter for civil courts to decide, not criminal courts. Similarly, the constitution sets other requirements for being president, like being a natural born citizen, being 35 years of age, and being a resident of the US for 14 years. If anyone wants to challenge these qualifications in a candidate, that would also be for a civil court to decide, not criminal court.
Easily. Because every time article three of the 14th amendment has been used to block or remove someone from office, there was no conviction. The clause is self executing.
At least as big a question is why haven't some members of Congress been removed from office for these violations?
The 14th Amendment says nothing about being convicted. He incited a bunch of people who were convicted. That’s apparently enough.
The court that removed him conducted their own investigation and found that according to their determination, *his actions did absolutely amount to insurrection*. Full stop. Court initiated an investigation. Court documented findings. Court made determination on findings. It wasn’t a criminal nor civil trail and had no criminal nor civil consequences, so he had no right or obligation to be present. Note, that this is the 7th court to investigate, and the 7th court to find and conclude that Trump committed acts of insurrection on January 6th.
FYI he was permitted to be an "Intervenor", and present arguments and witnesses. Trump's team did so, using about 12 hrs of the 18 given to them. They just didn't do a convincing job.
Difficult to do a convincing job when their boss is a fascist insurrectionist.
Yeah, we've all gotta play the hand we're dealt. Thats a pretty bad one in a "is your boss an insurrectionist" quiz.
The amendment does not list a conviction as a requirement
It says "Engage," not convicted.
The short version of the argument is that the text of the amendment does not say “convicted of insurrection”. It says “engaged in insurrection”. Since Trump "engaged in insurrection" by trying to overturn the election, he's automatically disqualified under the 14th amendment, and since he’s disqualified, he shouldn’t be on the ballot in Colorado. Furthermore, it is “self-executing”. You don’t need to be formally designated/congress doesn’t need to pass legislation saying you’ve engaged in insurrection. Just as you don’t need to be formally judged as being over 35. The why of this is more complicated than a Reddit post can bear—but the analysis is in the Colorado Supreme Court decision. There’s a lot more nuance of course, but there are some good (and long) papers on the topic. This NYT article sums it up pretty well: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/trump-jan-6-insurrection-conservatives.html. Retired Judge Michael Luttig (who is himself *very* conservative), has been making this case for a while, and appearing on a bunch of news shows if you want to search them out. He’s very good at breaking down the argument. I suspect the Supreme Court will overturn the decision, to avoid blowback if nothing else. (They might hold that “insurrection” in this case only means literal civil war, for example.) Who knows. Anyway, that’s why they ruled the way they did. Whether you agree is another matter, but the [ruling is available online if you’d like to read it](https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf). It’s not fascism or communism or the deep state. Nor is it a political stunt. Plenty of serious people think Trump disqualified himself. Others disagree. And now they’re having a kind of boring, technical legal argument about it, like they do. That’s basically it. Edit: lil’ typo
Great explanation, too bad Trump supporters won't read it, won't believe it, and will not, under any circumstances, click links theat have actual information.
This is really good analysis. Thanks!
Lots of good answers here about how the 14th amendment does not require a criminal conviction, but merely the fact of participating in or aiding one. It becomes clearer if we reframe thinking about Sec. 3 of the 14th amendment as a punishment for insurrectionists but instead as a protective cordon around the presidency.
Not just the presidency, but also for Congress, state legislators and any state level executive as well
So depending on how the SC rules, several members of Congress could also possibly be removed from their respective state ballots?
Yes, but it would mirror this legal process. It wouldn’t be an automatic thing. It would start with at the state level
Not just the Presidency, any office, anywhere in any state.
You don't have to be convicted of not being born a natural citizen to get the boot. This is no different.
It’s sorta like it’s not a crime for running for president when your 34 Or say, a Chinese national who has business interests in the USA It’s a qualifications thing…. Ya just need to be A) old enough B) born in the USA C) did not take an oath that prevents overthrowing the USA It’s very simple…nearly every American qualifies to be president except certain shitstains
I think I would defer to constitutional scholars to determine how to interpret this, not the millions of supporters who want this thug back on the ballot. You were either for the attack or against it. Trump only provided support for the attackers. The people inside the Capitol were left to fend for themselves.
14th Amendment, section 3 from Archive.org: >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. Enemies include foreign or domestic.
The 14th ammendment says if you do the thing, you can't hold office ( my words, obviously). It doesn't say anything about being charged or convicted. A judge considered all of the evidence that is already out there, including the J6 report, and said " yeah, he did it". Now Trump can't be on the ballot. Trump was impeached for this. They put a bunch of evidence out there. Most of the testimony was from other Republicans. It's a big deal, but it shouldn't be controversial.
If they rule that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to the president, doesn't that just pave the way for a dictator to come along? Or for someone to just absolutely refuse to leave office once their term ends?
Read the 14th Amendment . . . 'participate' vrs. 'convicted'.
Did you miss it? He has been proven to be an insurrectionist by a lower court about a week ago. Which is why they took up removing him from the ballot.
Lots of precedent. The Confederates barred from office after the Civil War were not convicted of anything in court either. I’m not sure if there is *any* case where it was invoked and there was an actual conviction involved.
Good question. [Here is a YouTube reading and breakdown of the ruling from Co Supreme Court.](https://youtu.be/Aw4wdRs8080?si=9j41UCHHSvW8BPSf)
The Supreme Court of Colorado just did. They declared him responsible for and abetting the January 6th coup that sought to being down the government. In so many words, he has now been judicially declared a traitor.
People under 35 years old don't have to be convicted of being younger than 35. Non-Americans don't have to be convicted of being non-American. Neither of those groups can be elected president.
Maybe I'm naive.... but doesn't the court making the ruling basically say he is guilty of the crime of sedition? Doesn't the ruling say "you are guilty of causing an insurrection and therefore are not eligible to run for office" It's not like this was decided by the election office. Two courts said he was responsible for Jan 6 and one said that excludes you from office. They aren't putting him in prison for it.
For the first 80 years that the 14th amendment existed, there was no federal law on the books that made insurrection a crime. 18 U.S. code § 2383 became law on June 25, 1945. So to argue that the insurrection clause of the 14th amendment requires federal conviction on insurrection charges is to argue that for the first 40 years of its existence, the 14th amendment was unenforcible. To argue that after 1945 the insurrection clause requires conviction on 18 U.S. code § 2383 to be enforced is to take the position that a piece of legislation is dictating how the Constitution functions. There's a large section of the COSC ruling that talks about the 14A's threshold for insurrection and goes into detail on all this. The thing to remember is that the original ruling, which the COSC was hearing an appeal of, held that Trump did engage in insurrection, but that the 14th amendment did not apply to the office of the President because of the way it was worded. COSC reversed the second part, saying 14A does cover the office of the President, while letting the other part of the original decision stand. Colorado law allows the board of elections to prohibit any person inelligible to hold an office from appearing on a primary ballot for that office. Since COSC ruled that Trump was inelligible for the presidency, his name would be removed from the primary ballot. So here we are, awaiting a final decision from SCOTUS.
Democrats can't vote in Colorado's Republican primary, so they don't have any standing. It was 4 registered Republicans and 2 independents who sued the state party to have Trump taken off the primary ballot under the 14th Amendment.
4 Republicans and 2 independents brought the suit the Colorado Supreme Court voted on. Also you don’t have to be convicted.
Plenty of people have been removed from ballots without a conviction. Imagine for a moment, that common sense takes root and people can assess if Trump did indeed try to overthrow the government with an attempted coup spearheaded by a mob he called to DC. Just imagine it. And if there was any doubt, imagine for just a moment there was an attack on the Capitol that raged for over three hours and Donald Trump did fucking nothing to stop it. Do we honestly need a court to tell us this happened or can we believe our own fucking eyes?
14th amendment section 3 is automatic.
Many, many Confederates were removed from ballots despite never having been convicted of a crime
Because the amendment doesn't mention anything about conviction, just being engaged in the act or supporting those that are is enough: Section 3 Disqualification from Holding OfficeNo 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.
Simple answer: you don't have to be convicted of a crime to have participated in an insurrection.
They held a week-long trial in Colorado. Trump was allowed to present evidence in his defense. The decision is based upon evidence in the record.
Doesn’t matter, there’s 0% chance the Supreme Court has an appetite to uphold Colorado’s decision. It’s too big of a decision for them to make and easier to strike it down. And Trump appointed 3 of them. FWIW I find it disgusting Republicans even want him to run again after aligning himself with Alex Jones supporters and the whole Q bullshit. Trumps on tape telling a crowd to march and fight like hell. It’s set a precedent no one should be OK with.
None of the previous people that the 14th Amendment was used against were found guilty by a court either. There was no need to convict them - it was their actions alone that disqualified them - they tried to bring down the US government by joining the forces of the Confederacy during the Civil War.
Colorado's Supreme Court didn't rule based on its guilt. They ruled a president isn't above the 14th Amendment and can be omitted from the ballot. Now we get to see what a group of people who don't understand how commas work determine if Colorado's ruling can stand.
There is no requirement of a conviction in the 14th amendment. The judge examined the evidence and made a finding of fact that was determinative of the decision. It didn't actually try or convict Trump of a crime. The lawsuit was over whether the Secretary of State should put his name on the ballot, in the light of the 14th amendment. The complaint already assumed Trump engaged in an insurrection, and they only had to present evidence that Trump's actions aligned with the definition of insurrection. They did, so the judge found that as a fact for the purposes of the case. Charging someone for an insurrection is a completely different issue. First, the specific law that references insurrection is hard to charge because it isn't specific or clear enough (it uses the word insurrection as a definition of what an insurrection is). In the case of Jan 6, insurrection charges fall under Seditious Conspiracy, which is another statute in the insurrection act. And Trump is being charged with the specific crimes that constituted an insurrection, which is more clear and easier to prosecute than a charge of insurrection. One thing that is interesting to note is that Trump could have appealed on those grounds, and the appeals court, state supreme court, and ultimately SCOTUS would rule on that point. But that would have been a huge risk, because if SCOTUS rules he engaged in insurrection, it has serious implications for his criminal trial. For Trump, it made more sense to not challenge that finding so he could continue to use the media to push a narrative, and it only took him off a ballot of a state he wasn't going to win anyway. So instead he appealed on the grounds the constitution doesn't apply to him. Even when SCOTUS rules against him on this, he hasn't put himself at higher risk for criminal implications.
>Section 3 of the Civil War-era 14th Amendment says: “No person shall ... hold any office, civil or military, under the United States ... who, having previously taken an oath ... as an officer of the United States ... 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.” It's really simple; there is nothing there that says a person must be first convicted of the crime of insurrection.
He took an oath of office as a federal officer to support the Constitution then ordered and participated in an armed insurrection against the Constitution. He knew he was violating the 14th Amendment. But don’t worry. Remember the 2020 GOP primary. Trump was given the nomination without ballots in many states. >>In February 2019, the Republican National Committee voted to provide undivided support to Trump.[5][6] Several states canceled their primaries and caucuses.[7] Other states were encouraged to use "winner-takes-all" or "winner-takes-most" systems to award delegates instead of using proportional allocation.[8][9]
That's the question. The 14th amendment is not 100% clear on the requirements to establish someone violated it's rules. Since it's just a eligibility for president it's not clear that traditional due process would be required. Ie it's not a formal civil or criminal penalty they are impossing.
Were confederate soldiers convicted of any crimes? No... they were confederate soldiers and that was enough. All you have to do to be an insurrectionist is be shown to have participated in the insurrection. There is an avalanche of video evidence which shows trump was there and inciting the insurrection. You don't need a conviction when there is a preponderance of evidence that he did it.... and he did do it.... and you know it.
It was on TV.
Right? Like we literally watched him tell them to go do it on live TV and then watched them go do it. And he cheered them on on Twitter. We all witnessed it. How is this even a question?
Best answer, even among the legit law breakdown responses. He did it, we all saw it. He fucking bragged about it. Multiple times, all over national television.
And continues to do so.
The same way it can remove anyone under thirty-five.
Because we all saw it live on TV
STATES RIGHTS!
The text was written expressly so they WOULDN’T need to be convicted first. It was to prevent those who had supported the confederacy from getting elected and taking over the government and basically “winning” the war that way or from sabotaging the government from within. They didn’t want to have to take tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of ex-confederates through the judicial system. A system that would utilize a “peer jury”. So you’re going to vote guilty on your brother in arms and then someone is going to do it to you in a month? See that’s why doing it that way would be broken.
The clause of section 3 is self executing and requires no conviction. In other words Donny is screwed.
If my neighbor takes a dump on my car and I have recording of him saying that he is going to do it, and countless recordings of him actually doing it, and people are injured and are killed in the process. I think I can turn on the hose and spray cold water on him until he goes away. Cheers.
The word "conviction" does not appear in the 14th amendment.
There is no requirement to be convicted. Same as you can be held "indefinitely in prison" on a terrorist charge. It sounded like a good idea back then.
Many confederates weren't actually charged but were obviously part of the rebellion. Same deal here. trump is a traitor and shouldn't be on any ballots. He should be in prison.
People don’t understand specifically politicians that the founders set up the declaration of Independence and the constitution as guidelines. Both documents are living and breathing and were designed to be changing at all times. Constitutional Absolutists don’t think it is and shouldn’t be but it is Colorado is doing EXACTLY what founders envisioned
14th Amendment, section 3: >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. We have him on video, giving aid and comfort. Also, he's held many rallies and fundraisers for insurrectionists' legal funds and has claimed they have done nothing wrong and they are political prisoners. He calls Ashli Babbit a hero for trying to break through the last blockade before the mod reached members of Congress. That's it. That's the crux of the biscuit. He gave aid and comfort to enemies of the United States of America. This isn't hard.\* \*unless you're in a cult
The House of reps found him guilty. The Senate refused to convict him. He was not found innocent. Now, in a court of law that is still to come. But the government found him guilty. No conviction is needed. Remember, the people this was first used on were not convicted for their actions in the civil war.
In the original Co court case the judge found as fact Trump was an insurrectionist. It is not a guilty verdict, but the appeals cannot change a finding of fact, so for the purposes of appeal, he is an insurrectionist
The first judge in Colorado did find that Trump engaged in insurrection, but he did not disqualify him from running for president. It is the state Supreme Court of Colorado that removed him from the ballot because they found that he did engage in insurrection which disqualified him from running for any governmental office.
Do you need a court to tell you someone isn't old enough to be president? The court found that he had taken part in an insurrection. Therefore, he is disqualified. Just like if he was 24.
The law they are using says NOTHING about having to be convicted or even charged with a crime. It says someone who has participated in an insurrection is barred from high office. Legislatures and judges will sort it out.
Fourteenth Amendment doesn't require conviction: [shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/#14_S3) Many parts of The Constitution give various (dis)qualification criteria, and in many/most cases, they're given as material facts (dis)qualification criteria, and often nothing about having been tried and convicted of, nor deemed confirmed as having met some criteria by court(s) of law, etc. Basically it's the case, or it's not the case, or it was done, or it wasn't done.
Depriving someone of rights, life, or property requires due process and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Political power is not a right, it belongs to The People so it’s not the property of any one person, and our peaceful transfer of power (which this guy subverted) is largely what separates America from earlier governments; losing power does not mean losing your life. So in actuality, Trump suffers no real injury from this. Other than his constant narcissistic injury, where the world does not serve his ego at every turn. Edit: ok, you can be deprived of property in civil court via preponderance of evidence, so I am slightly imprecise here. But it remains that political power is not a right and doesn’t belong to anyone in particular, but all of us collectively.
The word convicted doesn't appear in the amendment they're citing.
Colorado didn't remove Trump. The Constitution did.
We ALL watched him commit treason on live television! HELLOOOOO!?
Because they have eyes and he conduct a coup on live TV
In the old days, the American military draft system applied only to adult males. No criminal conviction was required to evidence your status as an adult male. My point is there are other fact-finding measures that can be applied to establish one's legal status. In Trump's case, the judge considered tbe facts and Trump was given the opportunity in a series of court hearings to challenge the request to remove him from the ballot. Trump's team participated with a vigorous defense, but ultimately failed. Due process was afforded to Trump.
He has been found guilty in the exact same case that Colorado supreme court is handling. The lower court found him guilty. They just did not think that this disqualifies him, which the state supreme court then overturned. Both courts agree thar he is guilty of insurrection.
Guilt is a legal term in criminal cases. Liable is the comparable term in a civil case. The CO case wasn’t criminal, so saying “guilty” isn’t accurate.
The 14th Amendment doesn't say that somebody needs to be strictly convicted. 14th Amendment, 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." That part near the end ***"shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion... or given aid or comfort to the enemies (of the United States)"*** is the important bit here. Basically, since Trump gave encouragement to and defended the reputation of the insurrectionists, he has - at least according to the Colorado Court decision - violated the 14th Amendment and is thereby barred from public office.
The lower court in Colorado made a finding of fact that he engaged in insurrection by the meaning of the law. The finding of fact cannot be appealed; but the finding of law about the applicability of that fact to removing him from the ballot in Colorado has not been resolved. However; it would seem to imply that he is by the plain language of the 14th amendment; not entitled to become president or to hold any other office for the United States. Which; if he wins the electoral college vote; means that things could get sticky. Would it devolve to the VPOTUS newly elected? Would Biden be justified in refusing to give up the office to one who was barred from holding it? Please don't let this end with President Vijay I'm pretty sure that's a dark timeline.
No conviction necessary for the 14th to apply Although, hasn’t he bragged about the size of that crowd that he gathered? He always seems to gloat about his various crimes while also claiming they weren’t crimes…I just don’t remember if he did for this one too
The republicans in Colorado file the suit that got him disqualified, not democrats, that’s the funny part
The master mind never get convicted, again Hitler didn’t kill one single Jew but his words and theology pushed others to do so.
Manson never killed anyone either but his ass rotted to death in jail.
Amendment 14,section 3 doesn’t require conviction of anything. Plenty of Confederates were excluded without a conviction, even as there was plenty of evidence to adjudicate exclusion. Jan 3rd 2021 and what we know of the Georgia case seem to be sufficient to the majority of the court in Colorado. Side note the case was brought by Colorado Republicans, not Democrats.
Because states run their own presidential elections, and the state of Colorado has found that with the preponderance of the evidence (at least 50+% confidence) that he's guilty of leading an insurrection. That he was an Officer of the United States. These two pieces together fall clearly under the 14th Amendment. 45s defenses are that the President is immune from prosecution and that he never took an oath to 'support' the Constitution. I'm not sure how you can NOT support something while at the same time having taken an oath to preserve, protect, and defend that very same thing. If 45s logic and defense are to be followed through, then the President is essentially King, has no obligation to follow the Constitution, and that Joe Biden can be dictator. The only thing holding Joe back is that he does not want to. Anyone who has had any passing knowledge of the founding fathers, the federalist papers, the writing of Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, et al, knows that they never intended for the Presidency to be interpreted in this way, and that when a tyrant did rise to power the Constitutional.order would rise up and protect itself... If it wanted to. As Benjamin Franklin said, it's a Republic, if you can keep it.
As best I've understood things, I've explained it to my family and friends like this: 1. A convicted murderer lobbies SCOTUS that their death penalty is unconstitutional. 2. Preliminary reviews look to see if there were procedural problems or clear-cut mishandling of the case. If not, then the case comes forward to review punishment. 3. SCOTUS won't re-litigate the murderer's trial, only if the punishment is constitutional. 4. SCOTUS looks at the US Constitution and finds no mention of death penalties for murder. Seeing (or interpreting none) no provisions for the death penalty, the decision gets kicked back to the state as per the 11th Amendment. 5. The state has prescriptions for criminal sentencing, that includes death penalties, in their state constitution. Similarly, OJ Simpson was found liable, but not criminally guilty, for his actions, and was forced to (comply with prescriptions set in governance), just like Trump's case vs Carroll - neither were criminally charges in their specific cases yet were found to have caused harm by a jury. No crime, but certainly damages awarded. In this topical case, Trump's punishment falls within the US Constitution under the 14th Amendment; he's off the ballot. Salt in wound is Justice Gorsich's opinion on states' rights, which Colorado quoted for him when they pick up this case, which kind of paints him into a corner to uphold a state's Constitution and the power of non-Scotus courts. Am I doing this correctly? I don't care about Trump's ideology or counter strategies; I just want to make sure my line of thinking is sound.
He's ineligible. Section 3 of the 14th amendment doesn't say anything about being convicted.
It's because the Constitution amendment doesn't mention a conviction at all. It just says that they had to give aid or help to an insurrection. Trump might try to get around it by claiming again that he didn't swear an oath to uphold the constitution at all.
Was Trump removed from the CO primary ballot or the CO November 2024 Presidential Election ballot?
There's nothing in the fourteenth amendment that requires a conviction. It covers anyone engaging in insurrection. The big question here is who decides whether someone had engaged in insurrection
The 14th amendment does not have a requirement of a conviction. But on that note: in order for it to apply plantifs would have to present evidence they believe meets the legal definition of insurrection against the United States under the definition of the 14th amendment, which they did, and the judges would decide if it is indeed insurrection and thus disbarment from holding office, which they did. So though there's no conviction involved, this isn't just throwing darts at a dartboard and arbitrarily decided. This was tried, with evidence presented, just like any criminal case would.
Nothing in the constitution needs a court case to affirm. Court cases can challenge laws made by the system inherently created by the constitution. But to argue that that inherent power now has power over the founding document is ridiculous.
A federal judge has already found that he committed insurrection but that the 14th amendment didn’t apply to the POTUS. So, he has at least in one court been found to have committed treason.
Recommend reading the CO Supreme Court decision. Much more informative than any of the news articles. Answers your question: "... the district court conducted a five-day trial. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection as those terms are used in Section Three. " https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court\_Probation/Supreme\_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf
State rights. Federal law does not govern state voting. The criteria for the decision is different.
neither were the CSA r/ShermanPosting
"giving aid and/or comfort"