The notion that the framers of 14Am would have taken great pains to ensure not one single traitor could hold one measly seat in Congress, but could be entrusted with the single most powerful position of all, is too stupid to debate.
Perhaps if you read the article, you might be able to make a reasoned argument. For example, the did exclude member of the electoral college. Perhaps they felt that was sufficient.
I am sorry the Media did this to you. Hope one day you escape the brainwashing and can once again process both sides and make up your own mind.
Au contraire, I read every word of your uncommonly silly article and felt my own IQ drop 3-4 points for having read it. The fact that I do not find your crap arguments the least bit persuasive does not mean I didn't hear them, from you or others before. It's just a crap argument.
Perhaps if you really read the article, you could make an intelligent, rational argument. Above, all you do it hurl ad hominem attacks, which are not arguments.
Hint: there ARE arguments that could be made. They are not great ones, but at least they are more than baseless name calling.
Again, I am sorry the Media and Elites did this to you.
I'm sorry that Trump has done this to you. Being sucked into a Cult by a ConArtist is a tough place to be. I hope that someday you'll be able to be de-programmed from this Cult and regain your touch with reality.
My only quibble with the article is in the claim that Congress has not passed a law enacting this provision of the 14th - is that not what 18 U.S. Code § 2383 does? And doesn't that mean that conviction under that statute is a necessary prerequisite to declaring a person ineligible to hold office?
That is an interesting question that I will have to research. Without research I would assume know for at least two (2) reasons: (i) if you look at 18 US Code Section 2383, it likely does not cite the 14th Amendment as the basis of the power to pass the legislation; and (ii) to date the litigation that I have reviewed (which is quite a bit) do NOT reference that statute (indeed, Colorado referenced the dictionary). However, I will take a look at post what I find.
If one begins by saying that 14A only applied to the Civil War, doesn't that stop further discussion? Yet you continue...
Congress passed legislation that was a blanket repeal (with exceptions?) When has Congressional legislative action been enough to repeal a Constitutional Amendment?
What I do not understand is why you are defending people who DID swear an Oath to the Constitution? There are members of the House who were sworn in on Jan 5th, 2021 and the VERY NEXT DAY they violated the Oath they swore to God!!
Why would anyone who loves this country want the people who violated the Oath they made in front of God and all Americans to protect the Constitution to be part of the gov't they hate and tried to overthrow?
I continue to address other arguments and issues raised to heighten awareness.
Legislative action is sufficient when the Amendment itself provides for it, which Section 3 provides. If you read the article, it explains that.
In this article, I'm not defending anyone, just explaining when and how the disqualification clause might apply.
No one who took at each on January 5 violated an oath on January 6. You've been hoaxed. Challenging Biden's certification under procedures provided for in the Constitution is not violating an oath. In fact, those that claim it are fascists because they're claiming political disagreement and applying the law as written is "violating" something.
You haven’t engaged the full arguments off those you smear as undemocratic and worse. Tribe and others know that the framers did not intend for this nation to be ruled by a king who could put an end to elections and the Constitution altogether. (Trump, by the way, has many times insinuated or outright stated that he intends to do both.) Ignoring this all-too-critical point, made continually and forcefully by those whom you smear, suggests that in fact it is you who are attempting “to thwart democracy.”
It’s interesting too that your heavily biased and ad hominem argument, your most loaded and subjective invective, could be easily turned on you yourself.
L. Tribe is a prof. emeritus from Harvard. Not Yale. A high school level of actual research would have told you that but I guess we are expecting too much from you. Sheesh
Know who Professor Tribe is because, when I was in law school, he wrote one of the two constitutional law books being widely used at the time. At that time, he was rightly considered a scholar. However, he has since giving up scholarly pursuits to be a rapid partisan. As such, his opinion is largely useless now.
This is one of the mini tricks of the Left; co-opting so-called experts to fool the masses. Challenge you to read his arguments and mine and make up your own mind.
The Media and "Elites" have nothing to do with whether your article is convincing or stands up to Logic and Critical Thinking. I too read every word and found it had holes in it. That has nothing to do with the Media or the Elites. It has to do with whether or not your argument holds up. It doesn't. 2+2=4. I don't need the Media to convince me of that. I don't need so-called, "elites to convince me of that. I can prove the equation is true, and true = Fact. It's falsifiable. You've only addressed the word "officer" as if it's arbitrary. It isn't. Its meaning is the same today as it was in 1868, Perhaps we need to find the definition of the word Officer.
Officer: Noun. : one who holds an office of trust, authority, or command: chief executive officer
Is the POTUS the Chief Executive Officer of the United States? Yes.
Therefore, He is by definition, an OFFICER.
>" Among them, a Supreme Court justice in interpreted Section 3 in 1871 and determined that it was limited to the Civil War. History also provides explosive evidence considering the fact that few, if any, were ever disqualified and no one has even tried, until recently, in over 100 years."<
This argument is weak. For starters, a Supreme Court Justice?? Which one and what does one Justice opinion matter regarding any final word on the subject? What did the other Justices have to say? Was there a case before the Court that brought that opinion? Section 3 applied to those who held office, NOT to those who fought in the battles. Thus, members of Congress who supported the war and were in rebellion, having taken an oath of office would be disqualified. Jefferson Davis didn't fight in the war but would be disqualified from any office in the United States. Officers in the Confederate Army would be disqualified.
And this: "determined that it was limited to the Civil War" is probably the most absurd point in your argument. Having just experienced the Civil War, it's ludicrous to assume that section three would not only refer to the immediate conditions in the country following the war but to any future attempts to try it again. The SCOTUS operates from Stare Decisis. They always look to precedent. There are no Amendment's that only apply to the moment. The 19th Amendment wasn't just for 1920. It was meant to apply from that point forward. Amendments to the Constitution aren't simply for today. They are for the future as well. I can't believe that anybody with a legal education as you claim to have, wouldn't know that. This of course is why the Constitution is considered a "living document". It evolves as we do. That's why we have 27 Amendment's today. The Constitution of 1791 is no longer the Constitution that we operate under. The Reconstruction Amendments 13, 14, 15, changed the Constitution forever.
>"At the outset, it is clear that it does not apply to the office of the President because that office is not named in the opening sentence delineating those offices to which it applies."<
It doesn't have to. Section 3 states "hold any Office". The office of the Presidency qualifies as any office. Did Trump "hold an office"? Yes. The Office of POTUS.
>"having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States,"<
Trump did take an "oath of office" as the Chief Executive Officer of the Executive Branch of the Government of the US. The members of Congress are named to differentiate between those in the Legislative Branch and those in the Executive Branch. But both take an oath to support the Constitution.
>"or as an executive"<
Is the POTUS an Executive? He is in fact, the Chief Executive. Did Trump hold an office in the Executive Branch of Government? Yes.
So, did Donald Trump hold an office in the United States? Yes. Does the President act as an executive? Yes, The Government of the United States is broken down into three separate branches. The Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch. He is the Chief Executive Office Holder of the United States. Does all of this make him an officer of the United States Government? Yes. He is the CEO of the United States. Even if you tried to claim that he wasn’t an “officer” it’s impossible to deny that he did hold an Office and was an Executive, both of which are addressed in Section 3. Does all of this demonstrate that he held an Office? Yes. Does all of this demonstrate that he was an Executive? Yes. Does Section 3 apply to Trump? YES. It does.
Ok. Let's start here: "Supposed experts from Yale law professor and constitutional law book writer Lawrence Tribe to supposed former “conservative” Republican jurist Judge Luttig have opined at length that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment not only could apply to the office of the President, it obviously does." To begin with, Tribe is a professor at Harvard. NOT Yale. And his name is spelled with a U and not a W. How you got that wrong is beyond me. Minimal research would tell you that. And Luttig is indeed a Conservative and a Republican. What he isn't is an enabler and sycophant of Donald Trump. He's not MAGA. He's a genuine Conservative. Perhaps that's what prompted your dig on Luttig.
While it is accurate to say that there is no direct application of the 14A to the President, the first question to be answered is whether it applies by inference. Despite our ostensible commitment to originalism SCOTUS has largely embraced a limited though expansionist approach which would utilize inference in Constitutional interpretation. This may well generate a result different from your and my desired outcomes. The second question to be answered - and it is absolutely not settled - is 1. whether the rally and demonstration on Jan 6 constitute an insurrection? and 2. Whether President Trump instigated and orchestrated the demonstration? Finally, the third question that naturally arises is whether the antics of Biden in 1. abandoning large quantities of armaments in Afghanistan, 2. leaving our southern border open to the ongoing invasion of aliens, 3. Providing China with American intellectual property and receiving personal gain, constitute “providing comfort and aid” to an enemy. If so Biden himself and many of the cohorts of his regime are likewise precluded from holding office under the same 14A.
Regarding #1 &2. These rulings are consistent with the views of Attorney General Henry Stanbery, who opined in 1867 during the debate on the 14th Amendment, that when a person has “incited others to engage in [insurrection or] rebellion, he must come under the disqualification.” President Andrew Johnson and his Cabinet approved that interpretation, and Johnson directed officers commanding the Southern military districts to follow it.
Stanbery wrote that “when a person has, by speech or by writing, incited others to engage in rebellion, they must come under the disqualification.”
Finally, the argument doesn't apply to Biden. You can neither impeach nor disqualify Biden over policy issues. Attempting to prove that he violated 14A would require an enormous amount of pretzel logic that I doubt any court, even SCOTUS would entertain.
The notion that the framers of 14Am would have taken great pains to ensure not one single traitor could hold one measly seat in Congress, but could be entrusted with the single most powerful position of all, is too stupid to debate.
Perhaps if you read the article, you might be able to make a reasoned argument. For example, the did exclude member of the electoral college. Perhaps they felt that was sufficient.
I am sorry the Media did this to you. Hope one day you escape the brainwashing and can once again process both sides and make up your own mind.
Au contraire, I read every word of your uncommonly silly article and felt my own IQ drop 3-4 points for having read it. The fact that I do not find your crap arguments the least bit persuasive does not mean I didn't hear them, from you or others before. It's just a crap argument.
Perhaps if you really read the article, you could make an intelligent, rational argument. Above, all you do it hurl ad hominem attacks, which are not arguments.
Hint: there ARE arguments that could be made. They are not great ones, but at least they are more than baseless name calling.
Again, I am sorry the Media and Elites did this to you.
Literally advocating for presidents to have the ability to become tyrants and calling others brainwashed in the same breath.
can't make this shit up
Unable to properly refute their argument, are you?
I'm sorry that Trump has done this to you. Being sucked into a Cult by a ConArtist is a tough place to be. I hope that someday you'll be able to be de-programmed from this Cult and regain your touch with reality.
My only quibble with the article is in the claim that Congress has not passed a law enacting this provision of the 14th - is that not what 18 U.S. Code § 2383 does? And doesn't that mean that conviction under that statute is a necessary prerequisite to declaring a person ineligible to hold office?
That is an interesting question that I will have to research. Without research I would assume know for at least two (2) reasons: (i) if you look at 18 US Code Section 2383, it likely does not cite the 14th Amendment as the basis of the power to pass the legislation; and (ii) to date the litigation that I have reviewed (which is quite a bit) do NOT reference that statute (indeed, Colorado referenced the dictionary). However, I will take a look at post what I find.
Thank you for the comment.
If one begins by saying that 14A only applied to the Civil War, doesn't that stop further discussion? Yet you continue...
Congress passed legislation that was a blanket repeal (with exceptions?) When has Congressional legislative action been enough to repeal a Constitutional Amendment?
What I do not understand is why you are defending people who DID swear an Oath to the Constitution? There are members of the House who were sworn in on Jan 5th, 2021 and the VERY NEXT DAY they violated the Oath they swore to God!!
Why would anyone who loves this country want the people who violated the Oath they made in front of God and all Americans to protect the Constitution to be part of the gov't they hate and tried to overthrow?
I continue to address other arguments and issues raised to heighten awareness.
Legislative action is sufficient when the Amendment itself provides for it, which Section 3 provides. If you read the article, it explains that.
In this article, I'm not defending anyone, just explaining when and how the disqualification clause might apply.
No one who took at each on January 5 violated an oath on January 6. You've been hoaxed. Challenging Biden's certification under procedures provided for in the Constitution is not violating an oath. In fact, those that claim it are fascists because they're claiming political disagreement and applying the law as written is "violating" something.
>"Challenging Biden's certification under procedures provided for in the Constitution is not violating an oath."<
Can you cite those procedures provided in the Constitution? Where is that stipulated?
This applies to sleepy Joe. Giving aid or comfort to the enemy.
You haven’t engaged the full arguments off those you smear as undemocratic and worse. Tribe and others know that the framers did not intend for this nation to be ruled by a king who could put an end to elections and the Constitution altogether. (Trump, by the way, has many times insinuated or outright stated that he intends to do both.) Ignoring this all-too-critical point, made continually and forcefully by those whom you smear, suggests that in fact it is you who are attempting “to thwart democracy.”
It’s interesting too that your heavily biased and ad hominem argument, your most loaded and subjective invective, could be easily turned on you yourself.
L. Tribe is a prof. emeritus from Harvard. Not Yale. A high school level of actual research would have told you that but I guess we are expecting too much from you. Sheesh
Know who Professor Tribe is because, when I was in law school, he wrote one of the two constitutional law books being widely used at the time. At that time, he was rightly considered a scholar. However, he has since giving up scholarly pursuits to be a rapid partisan. As such, his opinion is largely useless now.
This is one of the mini tricks of the Left; co-opting so-called experts to fool the masses. Challenge you to read his arguments and mine and make up your own mind.
How could you confuse the fact that Tribe teaches at Harvard and not Yale? I think we just read yours. It doesn't hold water.
SQUIRREL!
The Media and "Elites" have nothing to do with whether your article is convincing or stands up to Logic and Critical Thinking. I too read every word and found it had holes in it. That has nothing to do with the Media or the Elites. It has to do with whether or not your argument holds up. It doesn't. 2+2=4. I don't need the Media to convince me of that. I don't need so-called, "elites to convince me of that. I can prove the equation is true, and true = Fact. It's falsifiable. You've only addressed the word "officer" as if it's arbitrary. It isn't. Its meaning is the same today as it was in 1868, Perhaps we need to find the definition of the word Officer.
Officer: Noun. : one who holds an office of trust, authority, or command: chief executive officer
Is the POTUS the Chief Executive Officer of the United States? Yes.
Therefore, He is by definition, an OFFICER.
>" Among them, a Supreme Court justice in interpreted Section 3 in 1871 and determined that it was limited to the Civil War. History also provides explosive evidence considering the fact that few, if any, were ever disqualified and no one has even tried, until recently, in over 100 years."<
This argument is weak. For starters, a Supreme Court Justice?? Which one and what does one Justice opinion matter regarding any final word on the subject? What did the other Justices have to say? Was there a case before the Court that brought that opinion? Section 3 applied to those who held office, NOT to those who fought in the battles. Thus, members of Congress who supported the war and were in rebellion, having taken an oath of office would be disqualified. Jefferson Davis didn't fight in the war but would be disqualified from any office in the United States. Officers in the Confederate Army would be disqualified.
And this: "determined that it was limited to the Civil War" is probably the most absurd point in your argument. Having just experienced the Civil War, it's ludicrous to assume that section three would not only refer to the immediate conditions in the country following the war but to any future attempts to try it again. The SCOTUS operates from Stare Decisis. They always look to precedent. There are no Amendment's that only apply to the moment. The 19th Amendment wasn't just for 1920. It was meant to apply from that point forward. Amendments to the Constitution aren't simply for today. They are for the future as well. I can't believe that anybody with a legal education as you claim to have, wouldn't know that. This of course is why the Constitution is considered a "living document". It evolves as we do. That's why we have 27 Amendment's today. The Constitution of 1791 is no longer the Constitution that we operate under. The Reconstruction Amendments 13, 14, 15, changed the Constitution forever.
Yes, there was an insurrection, and yes, the 14A does apply to Trump.
https://lbrown.substack.com/p/tv-experts-and-the-constitution
>"At the outset, it is clear that it does not apply to the office of the President because that office is not named in the opening sentence delineating those offices to which it applies."<
It doesn't have to. Section 3 states "hold any Office". The office of the Presidency qualifies as any office. Did Trump "hold an office"? Yes. The Office of POTUS.
>"having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States,"<
Trump did take an "oath of office" as the Chief Executive Officer of the Executive Branch of the Government of the US. The members of Congress are named to differentiate between those in the Legislative Branch and those in the Executive Branch. But both take an oath to support the Constitution.
>"or as an executive"<
Is the POTUS an Executive? He is in fact, the Chief Executive. Did Trump hold an office in the Executive Branch of Government? Yes.
So, did Donald Trump hold an office in the United States? Yes. Does the President act as an executive? Yes, The Government of the United States is broken down into three separate branches. The Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch. He is the Chief Executive Office Holder of the United States. Does all of this make him an officer of the United States Government? Yes. He is the CEO of the United States. Even if you tried to claim that he wasn’t an “officer” it’s impossible to deny that he did hold an Office and was an Executive, both of which are addressed in Section 3. Does all of this demonstrate that he held an Office? Yes. Does all of this demonstrate that he was an Executive? Yes. Does Section 3 apply to Trump? YES. It does.
Ok. Let's start here: "Supposed experts from Yale law professor and constitutional law book writer Lawrence Tribe to supposed former “conservative” Republican jurist Judge Luttig have opined at length that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment not only could apply to the office of the President, it obviously does." To begin with, Tribe is a professor at Harvard. NOT Yale. And his name is spelled with a U and not a W. How you got that wrong is beyond me. Minimal research would tell you that. And Luttig is indeed a Conservative and a Republican. What he isn't is an enabler and sycophant of Donald Trump. He's not MAGA. He's a genuine Conservative. Perhaps that's what prompted your dig on Luttig.
While it is accurate to say that there is no direct application of the 14A to the President, the first question to be answered is whether it applies by inference. Despite our ostensible commitment to originalism SCOTUS has largely embraced a limited though expansionist approach which would utilize inference in Constitutional interpretation. This may well generate a result different from your and my desired outcomes. The second question to be answered - and it is absolutely not settled - is 1. whether the rally and demonstration on Jan 6 constitute an insurrection? and 2. Whether President Trump instigated and orchestrated the demonstration? Finally, the third question that naturally arises is whether the antics of Biden in 1. abandoning large quantities of armaments in Afghanistan, 2. leaving our southern border open to the ongoing invasion of aliens, 3. Providing China with American intellectual property and receiving personal gain, constitute “providing comfort and aid” to an enemy. If so Biden himself and many of the cohorts of his regime are likewise precluded from holding office under the same 14A.
Regarding #1 &2. These rulings are consistent with the views of Attorney General Henry Stanbery, who opined in 1867 during the debate on the 14th Amendment, that when a person has “incited others to engage in [insurrection or] rebellion, he must come under the disqualification.” President Andrew Johnson and his Cabinet approved that interpretation, and Johnson directed officers commanding the Southern military districts to follow it.
Stanbery wrote that “when a person has, by speech or by writing, incited others to engage in rebellion, they must come under the disqualification.”
Finally, the argument doesn't apply to Biden. You can neither impeach nor disqualify Biden over policy issues. Attempting to prove that he violated 14A would require an enormous amount of pretzel logic that I doubt any court, even SCOTUS would entertain.
Imagine defending an argument that the president is not beholden to defend, uphold and respect the constitution
Truly despicable waste of carbon.
Come back when you actually read the U.S. Constitution.