Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Dems Consider Obscure Provision in Constitution to Prevent Trump From Oval Office

Democrats continue to be obsessed with keeping former President Donald Trump from once again becoming President Donald Trump, as evidenced by what many have described as “unhinged” rants against him to commemorate the Jan. 6 Capitol Building riot.

https://conservativebrief.com/dems-consi..._x65TzB8es

You can tell this is a biased article because of how it selectively quotes the constitution.  Here's the full text of the section, important parts bolded:

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.

Congress has the power to make a list of people who are ineligible to hold office if those people previously took an oath to uphold the Constitution and subsequently gave aid and comfort to an insurrection.  If Congress does so, it could only be undone by a federal judge or a 2/3 vote of a subsequent Congress. 

Upshot, this can happen, if Trump doesn't like it, he better hope he gets in front of a sympathetic judge.

(01-07-2022, 04:12 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You can tell this is a biased article because of how it selectively quotes the constitution.  Here's the full text of the section, important parts bolded:

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.

Congress has the power to make a list of people who are ineligible to hold office if those people previously took an oath to uphold the Constitution and subsequently gave aid and comfort to an insurrection.  If Congress does so, it could only be undone by a federal judge or a 2/3 vote of a subsequent Congress. 

Upshot, this can happen, if Trump doesn't like it, he better hope he gets in front of a sympathetic judge.

2/3 of Congress agree?  Yeah right.

(01-07-2022, 04:26 PM)Norman Mushari Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2022, 04:12 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You can tell this is a biased article because of how it selectively quotes the constitution.  Here's the full text of the section, important parts bolded:

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.

Congress has the power to make a list of people who are ineligible to hold office if those people previously took an oath to uphold the Constitution and subsequently gave aid and comfort to an insurrection.  If Congress does so, it could only be undone by a federal judge or a 2/3 vote of a subsequent Congress. 

Upshot, this can happen, if Trump doesn't like it, he better hope he gets in front of a sympathetic judge.

2/3 of Congress agree?  Yeah right.

That's the great part.  All it takes it a concurrent resolution to put someone on the list, but you need a federal judge or a 2/3 vote of each house to get off the list.

---

And a judge might say it's a political question beyond their purview. Hasn't been tested.

So, how is Trump ineligible to take office again?

(01-07-2022, 05:11 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]So, how is Trump ineligible to take office again?

As of now he's eligible, but Congress can make him ineligible based on his actions.  This may be one of the recommendations of the Jan 6 committee.

The really beautiful part is, in order to undo it, Trump would have to go to court, where he would have to defend his actions that day.

As I read this thread, there is an advertisement for a company that sells gold and silver. One of the coins has DJT’s bust on it. Another one is the Don’t Tread on Me.

(01-07-2022, 04:12 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You can tell this is a biased article because of how it selectively quotes the constitution.  Here's the full text of the section, important parts bolded:

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.

Congress has the power to make a list of people who are ineligible to hold office if those people previously took an oath to uphold the Constitution and subsequently gave aid and comfort to an insurrection.  If Congress does so, it could only be undone by a federal judge or a 2/3 vote of a subsequent Congress. 

Upshot, this can happen, if Trump doesn't like it, he better hope he gets in front of a sympathetic judge.

Why would he need to appear before a judge?  In what court has he been convicted of such an offense?  (Other than the court of public opinion of your fellow, foaming-at-the-mouth, liberals.)  Is he not presumed innocent of any crime until proven otherwise?

(01-07-2022, 09:53 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2022, 04:12 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You can tell this is a biased article because of how it selectively quotes the constitution.  Here's the full text of the section, important parts bolded:

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.

Congress has the power to make a list of people who are ineligible to hold office if those people previously took an oath to uphold the Constitution and subsequently gave aid and comfort to an insurrection.  If Congress does so, it could only be undone by a federal judge or a 2/3 vote of a subsequent Congress. 

Upshot, this can happen, if Trump doesn't like it, he better hope he gets in front of a sympathetic judge.

Why would he need to appear before a judge?  In what court has he been convicted of such an offense?  (Other than the court of public opinion of your fellow, foaming-at-the-mouth, liberals.)  Is he not presumed innocent of any crime until proven otherwise?

I guess we'll find out! If Congress passes a resolution saying he's disqualified, who's he going to ask to rule that Congress didn't invoke amendment 14 section 3 correctly?

(01-07-2022, 05:28 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2022, 05:11 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]So, how is Trump ineligible to take office again?

As of now he's eligible, but Congress can make him ineligible based on his actions.  This may be one of the recommendations of the Jan 6 committee.

The really beautiful part is, in order to undo it, Trump would have to go to court, where he would have to defend his actions that day.

He hasn't been charged for any crime. It seems to be jumping the gun for Congress to make anything happen without Trump being formally charged and going through the justice system that would have to find him guilty. The court of public opinion, media opinion, or Congress' opinion doesn't matter unless or until this happens.

The OP was right... more TDS, even in this thread.

(01-07-2022, 11:57 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2022, 05:28 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]As of now he's eligible, but Congress can make him ineligible based on his actions.  This may be one of the recommendations of the Jan 6 committee.

The really beautiful part is, in order to undo it, Trump would have to go to court, where he would have to defend his actions that day.

He hasn't been charged for any crime. It seems to be jumping the gun for Congress to make anything happen without Trump being formally charged and going through the justice system that would have to find him guilty. The court of public opinion, media opinion, or Congress' opinion doesn't matter unless or until this happens.

Section 3 of the 14th amendment doesn't say anything about being formally charged or going through the justice system.  By itself, it's unclear how someone gets on the list.  But Section 5 clears it up.  "The congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article".

(01-08-2022, 09:12 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2022, 11:57 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]He hasn't been charged for any crime. It seems to be jumping the gun for Congress to make anything happen without Trump being formally charged and going through the justice system that would have to find him guilty. The court of public opinion, media opinion, or Congress' opinion doesn't matter unless or until this happens.

Section 3 of the 14th amendment doesn't say anything about being formally charged or going through the justice system.  By itself, it's unclear how someone gets on the list.  But Section 5 clears it up.  "The congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article".

No, you're incorrect.   Section 5 doesn't clarify anything.  What legislation banning any citizen could Congress possibly pass that does not require a supportive court finding?

I hate to defend Mikey's shenanigans, but the government is out of control. They could easily pass a law like that. There'd be a month of [BLEEP] and moaning from conservatives, then it would be done. Now, would they? That's a different question.

(01-08-2022, 09:42 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-08-2022, 09:12 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Section 3 of the 14th amendment doesn't say anything about being formally charged or going through the justice system.  By itself, it's unclear how someone gets on the list.  But Section 5 clears it up.  "The congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article".

No, you're incorrect.   Section 5 doesn't clarify anything.  What legislation banning any citizen could Congress possibly pass that does not require a supportive court finding?

In general, Congress cannot name citizens or even groups of citizens in its legislation. That is considered a bill of attainder. The framers of the 14th amendment openly discussed and debated that eligibility for office could be taken away from somebody, and it wouldn't be a bill of attainder because the ineligible person would still have their life and liberty. They considered requiring a judicial proceeding, and specifically did not do so. Section 3 of the 14th amendment is the one exception to the general principle that Congress cannot declare people guilty.

---

(01-08-2022, 09:47 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I hate to defend Mikey's shenanigans, but the government is out of control. They could easily pass a law like that. There'd be a month of [BLEEP] and moaning from conservatives, then it would be done. Now, would they? That's a different question.

There would be more than whining and gnashing of teeth. The second Republicans controlled both houses of Congress again, they would go hunting for a scalp, trying to find a Democrat that they can declare ineligible.

Sounds like a great Republic you're creating.

(01-08-2022, 10:54 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Sounds like a great Republic you're creating.

A democratic republic with separation of powers is best governed by compromise and consensus.

But voters here have come to believe that government is about defeating and humiliating enemies.  And they vote people in with a similar mindset.  And cycles of petty revenge become common, with actual governing on the back burner.

But even though the quality of government is poor, the Constitution is still in effect, and we still choose our government by voting with a peaceful transfer of power.  

When the man elected in 2016 tries to stop the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in over 200 years, those in power in 2021 and 2022 should be doing everything in their power to prevent him from ever tasting power again.

When the elections aren't valid and secure the people should revolt.

(01-08-2022, 04:15 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]When the elections aren't valid and secure the people should revolt.

Correct, but that is far from the situation we find ourselves in.