Why Section 3 Disqualification Doesn't Require a Prior Criminal Conviction

[Snowball]

Usually not in the habit of reading stuff from ex-Russian Jews who work for Cato Institute.

Pass.

And he's wrong. 100% wrong.

[TheCount]

Do your own reading. In 1870 The US Senate enforced section 3 by refusing to seat him. It wasn't a judge or partisan election official unilaterally preventing him from being voted for or nominated.

In fact, he was elected again in 1878 to the US Senate and served till 1894. The senate could have refused to seat him again but chose not to.

You're missing all of the context.

#1: He wasn't elected in 1870, he was appointed by the NC state legislature. The 17th amendment hasn't been passed yet.

#2: He could serve in 1878 because the Amnesty Act was passed prior to that.

[Brian4Liberty]

Ron Paul has spoken on this before, and mentioned it again today:

At the 1:50 mark, Ron Paul talks about the distinction and distortions between a Republic and Democracy, and how the promoters of "Democracy" are undermining democracy by treating Trump in an "ugly, unfair, deceitful manner" with one person able to "kick him off the ballot".

[Swordsmyth]

No, a few did and they were disqualified.

Source required.
Especially for the details of the process.

But it still wouldn't matter, there was an official declaration by the Union government that an insurrection was taking place.
There was none for J6.
And Trump also doesn't fit the description of who is disqualified in the 14thA, not every Confederate soldier was disqualified:

It doesn't matter...
There is a qualifier that Trump doesn't meet, which means he isn't subject to 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.

He has never taken that oath under those conditions, as President is not an officer of the United States.
Officers of the United States are nominated by the President or like office, and the President obviously can't nominate himself as an officer.

[Swordsmyth]

You're missing all of the context.

#1: He wasn't elected in 1870, he was appointed by the NC state legislature. The 17th amendment hasn't been passed yet.

#2: He could serve in 1878 because the Amnesty Act was passed prior to that.

And you are ignoring that it was the Senate that refused to seat him and no judge or bureaucrat was involved.

[Swordsmyth]

Do you ever get tired of making $#@! up?

Go read up on Zebulon Vance

Per your own later post we see that he was appointed and did not run for office and that no judge or bureaucrat was involved in refusing to seat him.
So the issue has never been adjudicated.
The Houses of Congress have always had the power to refuse to seat anyone for any reason and the 14thA did not give anyone else any new powers they did not have before.
It certainly did not give random people standing to sue in state courts over a nonexistent insurrection or to any SoS to act as judge, jury, and executioner.

There was no declaration of an insurrection, and even if there had been Trump would have to be convicted of participation because unlike the civil war and the soldiers and state governments of the Confederacy it is entirely debatable whether Trump participated in it. (He didn't participate in the riot)

And Trump does not fit the description of who was barred from office even if he had participated in an insurrection.

[69360]

Per your own later post we see that he was appointed and did not run for office and that no judge or bureaucrat was involved in refusing to seat him.
So the issue has never been adjudicated.
The Houses of Congress have always had the power to refuse to seat anyone for any reason and the 14thA did not give anyone else any new powers they did not have before.
It certainly did not give random people standing to sue in state courts over a nonexistent insurrection or to any SoS to act as judge, jury, and executioner.

There was no declaration of an insurrection, and even if there had been Trump would have to be convicted of participation because unlike the civil war and the soldiers and state governments of the Confederacy it is entirely debatable whether Trump participated in it. (He didn't participate in the riot)

And Trump does not fit the description of who was barred from office even if he had participated in an insurrection.

I think a strong arguement could be made that what he tried to pressure Pence into doing was insurrenction. A case could also be made for incitement.

[Snowball]

I think a strong arguement could be made that what he tried to pressure Pence into doing was insurrenction. A case could also be made for incitement.

Wrong.

The Vice Presidential role in confirmation of Electoral College was not automatic. He did not have to certify.

That's why they changed the law. Among other nice changes that make rigging elections easier.

It was called the "Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022".
It was passed and signed by the "winner" in December 2022.
Because altering the Constitution doesn't require a Constitutional Convention anymore.
They just stuffed it into Division P of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023.

Cuckmerica.

[Swordsmyth]

I think a strong arguement could be made that what he tried to pressure Pence into doing was insurrenction. A case could also be made for incitement.

Bunk, and you know it.

[Occam's Banana]

SCOTUS Unanimously Rules States Cannot Disqualify Trump from 2024 Ballot
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...m-2024-ballot/
BRADLEY JAYE 4 Mar 2024

WASHINGTON, DC – Colorado cannot disqualify former President Donald Trump from appearing on the 2024 ballot, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday.

In a historic ruling, the Supreme Court said only Congress can disqualify a candidate from the ballot using the Fourteenth Amendment’s “Insurrection Clause”, overturning a 4-3 opinion in December from the Colorado Supreme Court that the provision prohibits former President Donald Trump from appearing on the ballot for the presidency in 2024.

That ruling partially reversed a prior ruling in November that Trump is not an officer of the United States as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment and that the Amendment therefore cannot be used to disqualify him from appearing on the Colorado primary ballot.

This is the first time the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

//

[TheCount]

//

Kicking the can down the road as many predicted.

[Anti Federalist]

Kicking the can down the road as many predicted.

Seems pretty clear to me.

[TheCount]

Seems pretty clear to me.

How so?