Below is my column in the Hill on the Maine decision and how it is illustrative of Justice Louis Brandeis’ warning of the danger of zealots. Shenna Bellows has long embraced extreme political and historical viewpoints, including denouncing the electoral college as a “relic of white supremacy.” Bellows also declared that voter ID laws are “rooted in white supremacy.” Challengers knew that they “had her at hello” in seeking to disqualify former president Donald Trump. The coming week will likely show how the Supreme Court will address the issue.
Here is the column:
“You had me at hello.” That line from the movie “Jerry Maguire” came to mind this week after yet another Democratic secretary of state moved to prevent citizens from voting for former president Donald Trump.
Maine’s Shenna Bellows issued a “decision” that declared Trump an “insurrectionist” and ineligible to be president. She joined an ignoble list of Democratic officials in states such as Colorado who claim to safeguard democracy by denying its exercise to millions of Americans.
Yet the most striking aspect of this poorly crafted decision was not its litany of conclusory findings, but rather Bellow’s implausible suggestion that she struggled over the decision. Bellows was a natural choice for challengers, who have been searching for any officials or courts willing to embrace this dangerous theory under the Fourteenth Amendment that they can unilaterally bar candidates deemed rebellious or insurrectionist.
Challengers knew that they had Bellows at hello. She was one of the first officials to declare the Jan. 6 riot to be an “insurrection” prompted by Trump’s speech.
Bellows previously declared that “the Jan. 6 insurrection was an unlawful attempt to overthrow the results of a free and fair election…The insurrectionists failed, and democracy prevailed.” A year after the riot, Bellows was still denouncing the “violent insurrection.”
Of course, in the 1996 movie, Jerry Maguire reminded Dorothy that ” we live in a cynical world — a cynical, cynical world — and we work in a business of tough competitors.” However, he added “you complete me.”
In our cynical politics, Bellows and Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, among others, have become wildly popular for seeking to complete the effort to defeat Trump by removing him from the ballot. This cynicism is captured in statements from pundits who warn that Democrats can no longer rely on the election process, given Trump’s soaring popularity.
While not calling for legal disqualification, one law professor declared that Trump sought to “overthrow” democracy and his actions “disqualify him.” Thus, he wrote the “first and best start” is for Democrats to switch parties to engineer a defeat in the primary: “Democrats may have to act radically to deny Donald Trump the 2024 Republican nomination. We cannot rely on Republicans to do it…Trump must be defeated. No matter what it takes.”*
Many Democratic jurists and officials have refused to participate in this cynical effort to win the election through the courts. Maine’s Democratic U.S. Rep. Jared Golden denounced Bellows decision. California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) warned Democrats against embracing this legal theory. His state’s secretary of state Shirley Weber (D) had refused to do what Bellows just did.
Yet Democrats know that they need only to remove Trump from the ballots of a couple of key states to make him constitutionally incapable of becoming president, due to the electoral college. Thus, Trump could be the overwhelming choice of the voters but still be effectively barred from assuming office.
To achieve this end, advocates are willing to adopt the type of ballot-cleansing powers long associated with authoritarian countries such as Iran. That is why this theory of disqualification remains one of the most dangerous to arise in our nation’s history.
The U.S. stands as the most successful and stable democratic system in history. In the blind quest to block Trump “at any cost,” these officials have introduced a destabilizing element to our system that could be replicated in tit-for-tat politics for years to come. It has already begun, with Republicans calling to bar President Joe Biden from ballots.
The ballot-cleansing effort is only the latest example of what Justice Louis Brandeis identified as the true threat to our democracy — not the threat from other countries, but from within. “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding,” he said.
Some of these advocates exhibit precisely that zealotry of someone who seems to understand little beyond the next election, as opposed to the next generation.
The Supreme Court should act not only with finality but with unanimity in rejecting this pernicious disqualification theory. But these same advocates are likely to seek to delay or avoid such review. Even on the Colorado Supreme Court composed entirely of Democratically appointed justices, advocates could only eke out a 4-3 ruling, with a vehement dissent rejecting this theory.
There is a real chance that one or more of the liberal justices will show the same fealty to the constitution in rejecting the theory. That would undermine the claims of figures like Joe Scarborough that arguments against barring Trump are “laughable” and should be “mocked.” While the MSNBC host demanded that his interlocutors “spare me the anti-democratic lectures,” advocates are likely worried about getting precisely such a lecture, and a scathing one, from the Supreme Court.
Accordingly, if the court does not rule on the Colorado decision, Colorado may seek to moot the appeal, since the ballot would remain unchanged with Trump’s name on it.
Some justices may prefer this cup to pass from their lips. The divisive opinion in Bush v. Gore from 2000 still reverberates to this day. For an intense institutionalist like Chief Justice John Roberts, there is a tendency to take exit ramps to avoid rulings if these conflicts can be resolved in the lower courts.
However, the court now faces a call of history. After the Maine decision, the justices must realize that neither they nor the country can avoid this moment. Indeed, the court was designed for this moment: to stand between rage and reason; between cynicism and constitutionalism.
Proponents knew exactly whom to call upon for the right answer. Yet, to their credit, other Democrats, from California to Maine, did not say “hello” but “hell no” to this proposal. It is time for the Supreme Court to do the same.
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.
*NB: The column quotes and links to a column calling for Democrats to do whatever it takes to prevent Trump from taking office. While not named in the column, the author was Professor Bruce Ledewitz, who holds the prestigious Adrian Van Kaam C.S.Sp. Endowed Chair in Scholarly Excellence at Duquesne University’s School of Law.
Professor Ledewitz wrote me to object that the column suggested that he supports the 14th amendment theory to disqualify Trump. He does not and was specifically calling upon fellow Democrats to switch parties to defeat Trump. The reference to his column was specifically meant to highlight his call to stop Trump from returning as president “no matter what it takes” as an example of the zealotry of our times. However, Professor Ledewitz’s opposition to the 14th Amendment theory is commendable and should be noted. He stressed to me that he wants to oppose Trump by whatever means possible so long as it does not violate traditional norms to do so. It is further evidence that many Democrats refuse to adopt this anti-democratic theory to block Trump in the courts. I appreciate his writing to clarify his position on disqualification theory. I tweaked the line above to reflect his views.
Is it undemocratic to place an age limit on eligibility to run for president? Even if the majority of voters wanted to elect a teenager?
What about a foreign born president? Even if the voters wanted to elect that president.
Multiple state level supreme courts ruled that Trump did give aid & comfort to Insurrectionists and likely was the architect – engineering the insurrection himself.
Trump had previously swore a supreme loyalty oath (governing his job authority) to uphold and follow the U.S. Constitution. Months leading up to the January 6, 2021 insurrection attempt, evidence shows Trump betrayed that Oath of Office.
If you read Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, it’s precisely designed to disqualify for such a disloyal candidate for president.
And if you read Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, only Congress has authority to enforce it. Which they have done, through a criminal statute. That being the case, conviction under that statute is the only means of triggering the disqualification clause of Section 5. It can’t be the case that he did it in DC if the observer is in Colorado or Maine but didn’t do it DC if the observer is in Texas.
“Which they have done, through a criminal statute.”
Nope. 14A s3 is civil code.
14A s3 is civil code
No, it’s the Constitution. The Constitution deals with both civil and criminal legislation. S3 has left it up to Congress how to enforce, and Congress has chosen a criminal statute (below) – which only makes sense because of what I mentioned above, i.e., that he can’t be innocent in one jurisdiction and guilty in another of the same alleged offense.
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
18 U.S.C. 2383
Thanks OM from KS
That is rational and ties all the pieces together. You know 90% of Dems and Repubs would agree with the process you show as laid out in the Constitution. UNTIL the dems need to kneecap President Trump.
How is it the People should be denied todays leading candidate for President?
Do you believe that Section Five qualifies Section One and renders its commands – birthright citizenship, privileges or immunities, due process, and equal protection – inoperative until enforced by congressional legislation? That would imply that Section One had no self-executing legal effect, which has never been the law.
If you don’t, then why do you treat Section Three’s relationship to Section Five differently from Section One’s relationship to Section Five?
If you don’t, then why do you treat Section Three’s relationship to Section Five differently from Section One’s relationship to Section Five?
It’s actually a very good question. And I hope SCOTUS answers it in the near future, which I anticipate it will. If I had to predict, I’d say they will reason as follows:
(a) Section one restrains government, consistent with other amendments such as the First Amendment, and thus it does not need to be activated by legislation. Such constraints are an inherent aspect of the very government which the Constitution as a whole establishes. If the government is alleged to have transgressed these restraints, litigation must take place to establish and remedy such transgression. This is contrasted with Section 3 which imposes liability on an individual, in the form of ineligibility from office. Such liability also requires litigation to establish that the person be proved to have done something blameworthy. Impositions of liability on individual persons can’t exist in a vacuum, there must be statutory procedures that comport with due process — which constitutionally speaking protects individuals but not the government. That, in turn, requires legislation, and (logically) it requires a type of legislation that precludes 50 different states coming to conflicting determinations of whether the person in fact committed the blameworthy action. The Constitution is not meant to be a recipe for chaos.
(b) Even if Section 3 could have been self-executing originally, Congress has now acted pursuant to its Section 5 authority. As Congress has now stepped into the void, its prescribed procedures must be followed exclusively. That means, a criminal conviction under Section 2383 is a prerequisite to ineligibility. As for the point that Section 2383 doesn’t explicitly say it’s enforcing 14As3, its content clearly does enforce it, and I believe that’s enough.
P.S. I haven’t read Trump’s lawyers brief, but now that we’re in this discussion, I’m getting kind of interested, so I will so soon.
Old Man, check out p49-60 of the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision. They borrowed heavily from Baude & Paulsen with their analysis.
There is no textual reason (i.e., based on how the text and structure of the Amendment) why Section One should be self-executing and Section Three should not be. Whether the provision must be initially activated by legislative action is an enormous threshold issue. If their intent was to treat these sections differently, the text should have reflected that.
Your attempt to make a functionalist distinction doesn’t make much sense to me. Is your argument that Art II, S1.C5.1 (35 yr requirement) is also not self-executing? What about the Twenty-Second Amendment (imposing a term limits on the office of the President)?” If that Amendment is not self-executing, does that mean that a President can serve 3 terms because Congress hasn’t passed legislation enforcing it? Why would these qualifications, which “impose liability on an individual” and thus “require legislation to establish that the person be proved to have done something blameworthy” not be treated similarly to Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Consistency is key.
And there is no way to shoehorn Section 2383 as limiting legislation without a judge significantly rewriting the statute. As the Colorado Court opines, “All that means, however, is that a person charged and convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2383 would also be disqualified under Section Three. It cannot be read to mean that only
those charged and convicted of violating that law are constitutionally disqualified from holding future office without assuming a great deal of meaning not present in the text of the law.”
I would say that qualifications such as age and residency are self-executing because they don’t deprive anyone of anything, they just set forth basic qualifications for office. Section 3 is different: it takes an individual who previously was eligible, and affirmatively deprives him of eligibility. IOW, it deprives him of a liberty or property interest he already had: the due process right to pursue a lawful occupation. It is that deprivation which requires process. To analogize: I can’t get a driver’s license unless I show up at the DMV with proof that I’m of age and a resident of the state. Those are basic qualifications. But once I have the license, the state can’t deprive me of it without adequate process.
I disagree with the Colorado court’s analysis, which I find to consist in large part of conclusory assertions. But my opinion is not the one that counts: SCOTUS’s opinion is the only one that counts. And as mentioned, I believe we’ll have the benefit of that pretty soon.
I already explained why constitutional provisions limiting the power of the government are materially different from constitutional provisions limiting an individual person’s freedoms.
You conveniently ignored the 22nd Amendment question…
Additionally, your understanding of procedural due process does not accord with the law. In Kapps v. Wing, the 2nd Circuit held that, though “the Supreme Court has repeatedly reserved decision on the question of whether applicants for benefits in contradistinction to current recipients of benefits) possess a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause, every circuit to address the question . . . has concluded that applicants for benefits, no less than current benefits recipients, may possess a property interest in the receipt of public welfare entitlements.”
Thus, for DP purposes, there is no difference between the Section One and Section Three w/r/t the type of deprivation. An applicant for welfare receives DP when denied EVEN IF that applicant does not currently possess welfare benefits. The same would thus be true of a 34 year old seeking the office of the Presidency (perhaps, for example, he would turn 35 by inauguration day and therefore believes he has a right to be on the ballot.)
You conveniently ignored the 22nd Amendment question
I didn’t conveniently ignore it. I just missed it in all the other text, of which there was much. 22A says that a president can serve no more than two terms. That is materially different than a disqualification (and thus a deprivation of a constitutionally-protected liberty interest) based on the person having committed a blameworthy act. Can you see why one would require legislation to set forth the required process for determining guilt, and the other would not?
“qualifications such as age and residency are self-executing because they don’t deprive anyone of anything, they just set forth basic qualifications for office”
They deprive people of eligibility who don’t meet the qualifications. Same thing for the insurrection clause: it deprives people of eligibility if they do meet that qualification.
“[14A s3] deprives him of a liberty or property interest he already had.”
No, it deprives him of neither liberty nor property.
“the due process right”
He had due process in the form of a 5-day trial.
Driver qualifications don’t deprive people of something they already had. People have a protected liberty or property interest in engaging in lawful employment. Whether he had a 5-day trial or not is irrelevant. The point is that Congress has already determined the process for disqualification, and thus, deprivation of his right . . . and it wasn’t followed. If Congress hadn’t acted you’d have a stronger argument. But then we’d still be left with 52 different jurisdictions each getting saying something different on whether Trump is disqualified. As I noted earlier, the Constitution is not intended to be a recipe for chaos.
“Congress has already determined the process for disqualification”
It hasn’t.
14A s3 is a civil amendment. It does not require criminal conviction, and Congress creating a criminal law did not suggest that that criminal law is the only way of applying 14A s3.
“we’d still be left with 52 different jurisdictions each getting saying something different on whether Trump is disqualified.”
They each get to determine what their state law says. SCOTUS can overrule. Presumably Trump will appeal by the 4th and SCOTUS will grant cert.
“the Constitution is not intended to be a recipe for chaos”
You and I disagree that that’s chaos, any more than other differences in their voting laws is chaos.
You and I disagree that that’s chaos, any more than other differences in their voting laws is chaos.
So do you think it’s possible for one person to be guilty of a particular act in DC, if the person determining guilt sits in CO or ME, but not guilty of that same act if the person determining guilt sits in (say) TX or FL?
Can you see how that’s different than a mere difference in voting laws between states?
No, I think that the laws in some states require that he be taken off the primary ballot (as is the case for both CO and ME), whereas the laws in other states don’t, because of how primary ballot laws / party control of primary ballots intersects with state laws. After all, the states where they ruled against 14A s3 enforcement were largely about the difference in law between primary and general elections, finding the challenges premature.
And no, I don’t think it’s different than the differences in voting laws. In both cases, it’s a matter of the intersection of facts and state laws.
“. . . it deprives [Trump] of neither liberty . . .”
BS.
“Liberty” means the unconditional right to choose one’s own values and goals. Removing him from the ballots clearly deprives him of that right.
But “liberty” does *not* mean an unconditional right to have one’s own values and goals *achieved*. If someone who isn’t a natural born citizen has a goal of becoming President, that doesn’t imply that he can actually become President. If someone who has engaged in insurrection has a goal of becoming President, that doesn’t imply that he can actually become President either.
“The Constitution deals with both civil and criminal legislation.”
Duh.
And 14A s3 is civil.
OldmanfromKS,
Give this a read: https://www.thefp.com/p/bill-barr-banning-trump-from-the
Thanks Upstate, good article. I only wish he had fessed up to the fact that In re Griffith was not a SCOTUS decision. I had to look that up. But a key passage is here:
In neither case was Trump afforded a jury, the ability to cross-examine the evidence introduced against him, or ability to subpoena witnesses. Much of the evidence introduced was hearsay or conclusory statements from congressional hearings which did not allow for an adversarial process.
Furthermore, again, I don’t see how it can possibly be the case that Trump is guilty of a specific act committed in DC when the person determining guilt sits in one state, but innocent of that same act when the person determining guilt sits in another state. I’m waiting for an answer on how that can possibly have been the intent of the framers of 14A,s3 or even the meaning of the plain text.
It’s a civil issue. They’re not ruling on guilt or innocence of a crime, but on a factual issue of ballot qualification just like the people who filed state court challenges to Obama, claiming that he wasn’t a natural born citizen. The officials (judges, SoS) are determining the relationship of 14A s3 to their state laws about ballot eligibility. In some case eligibility for primary ballots is controlled by the state, and in others, it’s controlled by the parties. Which is why those who’ve said that Trump can appear on the primary ballot (like MI) have said that the issue is premature and can be reconsidered for the general election ballots.
She was appointed by a state legislature, which was elected by citizens. Begin there.
So the barest of majorities in ME can end up determining who can win the WH? I guess if FL and TX decide that Biden is a traitor than he can be banned from those two more populous states.
This partisan nut job was appointed, not elected. If you think that gives her unlimited power than I guess any appointee will have commensurate power. I guess the SOS of TX, a sort of swing state, can banish all candidates of the Dem party. I guess Ted Cruz will not have a challenger this year.
I suppose that Blinken can make a deal with the CCP… since he was appointed.
I guess the Sec of Defense, Austin, can drop a bomb on Russia…since he was appointed.
I guess the Supreme Court can rule that Biden needs to be banned from running and they can do it with a 6-3 vote…since they were ALL APPOINTED.
Yes. See, the 2000 election.
The quotation from Justice Brandeis refers to “men of zeal.” Is it perhaps more accurate to refer to “women of zeal”? It seems that the majority of people pushing this exclusionary tactic are distaff. The legal profession has been profoundly changed by a change in the respective percentages of men and women participating therein. No one has seriously considered how the feminization of the profession affects American law. I will suggest that the female half of humanity is more likely to want to suppress persons or ideas deemed to be dangerous. Safety lies in censorship.
I’ll suggest that you’re sexist.
Conservatives on this court violated both the letter & spirit of the U.S. Constitution with the “Citizens United” ruling. In real practice “Citizens United” gives greater rights to “non-human” citizens than human-citizens.
Apparently the Founding Fathers didn’t design the Bill of Rights for humans in 1791.
Citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is drastically more legitimate than the legalese of “Citizens United”.
Conservatives opened up this can of worms!
Congress created a law that forbid the publishing of books, and other writings, movies, radio broadcasts for ~90 days before an election
The 1st amendment says “Congress shall make no law . . . ”
No further analysis is required.
The people that always complain about corporations never seem to have an issue with UNIONS, even PUBLIC UNIONS, giving millions to Democrats. Why is that?
@hullbobby
Or universities!
The CEO’s have been backing Democrats in recent years, Citizens United has been more of a boon for Democrats lately. These high tech titans, worth billions, are often left wing Democrats now. These types gave so much money to Chuck Schumer last election cycle he was able to buy the control of the Senate for Democrats. Not going to happen this time. Biden is going to drag down the ticket everywhere, the Democratic message; open borders, astronomical federal deficits, hiring more IRS agents, spiking gas prices to deal with climate change, draconian DEI hiring by the federal govt, – which violates the basic civil rights of many job applicants, these things are going to doom the Democrats.The Democratic party has been taken over by left wing extremists, extremists, people that don’t believe in Democracy (we jail political opponents we don’t like), or have only a sketchy understanding of Democratic principles (US Constitution outdated, written by white men). I was a blue collar Democratic voter most of my life, I don’t recognize the Democratic party anymore. The democrats used to be a reform party, it’s now the party of corruption.
Nothing reflects the Democratic Party’s confidence in the current U.S. foreign and domestic policy better than their collective, panic-driven assault on the electoral process.
And yet it was Trump and the Republicans who engaged in an attempted coup in 2020-2021. That is about as big as an assault on the electoral process as one can do.
Wait! Are you out of your ——- mind?
Answer: A resounding yes!
______________________________
“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
– Barack Obama
______________
“We will stop him.”
– Peter Strzok to FBI paramour Lisa Page
___________________________________
“[Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”
– Lisa Page to FBI paramour Peter Strzok
___________________________________
“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before 40.”
– Peter Strzok to FBI parmour Lisa Page
_________________________________
“People on the 7th floor to include Director are fired up about this [Trump] server.”
– Bill Priestap
___________
The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious crime in American political history. The co-conspirators are:
Kevin Clinesmith, Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann,
James Comey, Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic, Sally Yates,
James Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Sir Richard Dearlove,
Christopher Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper,
Azra Turk, Kerry, Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power,
Lynch, Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Obama,
Joe Biden, James E. Boasberg, Emmet Sullivan, Gen. Milley, George Soros, John McCain,
Marc Elias, Igor Danchenko, Fiona Hill, Charles H. Dolan, Jake Sullivan, Strobe Talbot,
Cody Shear, Victoria Nuland, Ray “Red Hat” Epps, Don Berlin, Kathy Ruemmler, Rodney Joffe,
Paul Vixie, L. Jean Camp, Andrew Whitney, Lisa O. Monaco et al.
Q: Are you out of YOUR ——- mind?
A: A resounding yes!
Brilliant!
Simply Brilliant!
And thank you again for reading, again, and again, and again.
HOW LONG CAN YOU COMMUNISTS LIVE ON LIES?
_________________________________________________________
“The end [justifies the means.]”
– Leon Trotsky
_________________
“Peacefully and patriotically.”
– Real President Donald J. Trump
____________________________________
“There was a widespread understanding that this election [in 2016] was not on the level.”
“We still don’t know what really happened.”
“There’s just a lot that I think will be revealed. History will discover.”
“But you don’t win by 3 million votes and have all this other shenanigans and stuff going on and not come away with an idea like, ‘Whoa, something’s not right here.’ That was a deep sense of unease.”
– Hillary Clinton
__________________
Read Special Counsel John Durham: “Russia, Russia, Russia” was entirely vacuous and “fake” just like your equivocation here.
That is about as big as an assault on the electoral process as one can do.
Democrats: Hold my beer! 🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺
OLLY,
LOL!
Good one!
I always wonder if the people that do these things actually believe they are doing right. No charge, no conviction and yet Trump is called an insurrectionist and disqualified. I wonder if I called these people insurrectionists for trying to keep a man off the ballot and usurp the voting process, could I have them disqualified from their jobs without charge and conviction.
Donald Trump has irritated people to the point of losing any sense of rationality. Yet, it should not preclude him from the ballot minus at least charges. Still innocent until proven guilty, right?
Just out of curiosity, do you think if there were no insurrection charges after all of this time, just maybe there is no insurrection?
The Supreme Court will have to weigh in this time because even if there is a mootness claim, there were findings that Trump engaged in insurrection and need to at least be examined and confirmed or overturned. There are other cases pending and this can keep ongoing. I worry when the shoe is on the other foot and the whip changes hands, the Democrats are not going to like when it is their candidate.
14A s3 does not say “charged with,” much less “convicted of.” It says “engaged in.”
“if I called these people insurrectionists for trying to keep a man off the ballot and usurp the voting process, could I have them disqualified from their jobs without charge and conviction.”
Depends on whether they actually engaged in insurrection, according to the evidence and the laws of the state in which the challenge was made.
Dumbest argument ever. No law ever says “charged with” or “convicted of”.
18USC2383 does not use those words.
No law ever says “charged with” or “convicted of”.
But the law does enumerate the required elements of the crime.
14A s3 is not criminal code.
“No law ever says “charged with” or “convicted of”. ” … he claims, with no evidene whatsoever.
And they do say things like “shall be fined under this title or imprisoned.”
“No law ever says “charged with” or “convicted of”. ”
That’s false, and if you’d bothered with a simple internet search, you’d know it’s false.
Examples include:
18 U.S. Code § 3559
18 U.S. Code § 3661
21 U.S. Code § 851
18 U.S. Code § 982
18 U.S. Code § 3142
21 U.S. Code § 862
48 CFR § 252.203-7001
18 USC 2383
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Oh my god!!! It doesnt say “accused of” or “convicted of”.
Idiots.
But it does set the required elements.
None of those elements are met of the Jan 6 protest. We know this because the DoJ never found any of the elements pertained to those the DoJ did charge with crimes.
You are arguing for a one man insurrection. A man that was never on site.
You are missing the point. No statute, law, amendment ever uses the phrase “convicted of”. That is inferred. Section 5 resulted in 18 USC 2383. End of Story.
BS.
For example, Article III, Section 3, Clause 1:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
18 U.S. Code Part I §§ 1 – 2725 — CRIMES
14A s3 is a civil reference, not criminal code.
Wrong. The civil penalty is included in 18 USC 2383. Section 5. End of story.
18 USC 2383 is part of the criminal code.
Since you are wondering, peruse Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. Best book on political behavior. Spoiler alert: Facts don’t matter.
“I always wonder if the people that do these things actually believe they are doing right.“
I don’t think it even occurs to them to wonder. “Right” is whatever is good for Team Left and nothing else is relevant.
The Quiet Man,
Is that not the definition of a zealot? Doing what they feel is right with no evidence, no objective or critical thinking. She looked at some YouTube videos and acted unilaterally, UN-democratically and disenfranchised millions of their right to vote.
That is what Democrats call Democracy. Just like Iran does.
Truley on Trump’s attempted coup: “I am going to make vague statements kinda saying it was not good but otherwise supporting Trump.”
Turley on the Electoral College Electing Trump even while losing the popular vote: “That is way the Consitution has it set up and there is nothing to be done.”
Turley on using the clear language of the 14A to not give Trump another chance: “Assault on Democrocy!!!”
Metamucil Sammy. There is no national popular vote for President.
According to the Constitution, no. But according to the basic ability of anyone to look up all the election results and do arithmetic, yes.
I guess you dont have the mind power to realize why that number is meaningless. Do you need me to explain it?
It is both common and expected for the one who gets the most votes in an election to win. Our system of using the EC is unusual. The point is that:
if (Disqualifying Trump under the 14A is undemocratic even though that is the way it is set up in the constitution) AND \
(EC gives presidency to person with less votes is acceptable because that is the way it is set up in the constitution):
You are a hypocrite.
else:
Trump is disqualified.
I’m glad you get to stipulate the point, Metamucil.
“Our system of using the EC is unusual. The point is that:”
We are the United States. Idiot. That is what is unusual. Don’t like it? Move to France.
There is no more/less votes numbnuts. You really DON’T get it, do you? There are 50 popular votes for President. Trump won the majority of those BOTH times.
14A, Section 5. It’s like talking to a 3rd grader.
“The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
It does not say that no one else can enforce it. It is absurd to argue that Congress can nullify parts of the Constitution by failing to pass a law to enable it.
It is both common and expected for the one who gets the most votes in an election to win.
I dont think that because its wrong. I paid attention in School.
What about a three way race? Still say the one with the most votes wins?
You become a bigger idiot everytime you comment. You have proven you know NOTHING about the topic you comment about
And no, there is not. Because u used the term “lost” as though it was a contest. Its not and that is the point. And you’re either dishonest or not too bright to try to make it an issue.
Svelaz posts a totally irrelevant steaming turd.
Don’t buy a single vote more than necessary. I’ll be damned if I’m going to pay for a landslide.
Joseph P. Kennedy
Ms. Bellows is appropriately named, she is blowing hot air of a Democrat Party nature. Sad.
Bellows the cow. Good one!
“. . . block Trump ‘at any cost’ . . .”
The highest cost might be the Left transforming America from “a government of laws, not of men” — into a government of utterly arbitrary, power-lusting bureaucrats and “judges.”
Using part of the Constitution is NOT “transforming America from “a government of laws, not of men”” The Constitution is the highest law in the land.
“Using part of the Constitution” as a rationalization is rule by arbitrary decree. A king with a scepter is more honest.
LOL that you believe that garbage. “Using part of the Constitution” as a rationalization is the opposite of rule by arbitrary decree.
“. . . rationalization is the opposite of . . .”
Somebody doesn’t understand the meaning of the word “rationalization.”
Nice distortion of the meaning by selective cutting!
Using one part, Section 3, without the other, Section 5, is unconsttutional.
Do you falsely believe that it’s unconstitutional to use one clause of the 1st Amendment without the rest of the 1st Amendment?
They are not zealots as much as they are terrorists whose goal IS the destruction of our traditional culture and society. Just like jihadis on a mission, you can see the similarity of their actions – they will stop at nothing to achieve their goal. Just compare the lengths to which they have already inflicted great damage to zealots flying planes into crowded buildings.
There are now three cases SCOTUS may decide that will affect the election: disqualification, immunity and obstruction.
On disqualification, I think the court will decide in favour of Trump on one of three grounds: (1) a President is not a covered person under Section 3 because he is not an “officer of the United States”; (2) a conviction for insurrection or rebellion under a federal statute or some other Congressional enabling act is required before state authorities can disqualify a candidate under Section 3; or (3) the procedures employed thus far have violated procedural due process. The first two are better because either would dispose of these efforts against Trump once and for all. I think the court will avoid having to decide whether Trump engaged in an insurrection or rebellion.
On immunity, I think there is a fair chance the court could conclude there is absolute immunity for official acts and then remand to the district court to decide whether Trump’s conduct at issue was in his official capacity or in his capacity as a candidate.
On obstruction, I think there is a fair chance the court could decide that the statute does not apply to the Jan 6 defendants.
Nothing is certsin here, however. But i don’t the the court can dodge the isdues as it did in 2020.
(1) is likely, because it’s true. (2) won’t fly, because the clause was originally written to prevent Georgia from electing Alexander Stephens to the senate, and yet Stephens was never convicted of anything. So it can’t be that a conviction is required in order to disqualify someone.
On immunity, everyone already agrees that presidents have absolute immunity for official acts, just like all other official do, including the prosecutors bringing the charges! The entire dispute is over how to define official acts. So the Supreme Court saying so would be meaningless. We already know that.
milhousevh
Did Georgia keep Stephens off the ballot?
There is the verbiage that the 14th keeps someone from holding office. Does not keep them from running for and being elected. Leads me to Congress voting not to seat insurrectionists. This to me is ideal. Because it empowers the people at the next election in two years, holding the Congress critters to account for their vote, overturning an election. Just like an Impeachment and conviction.
Everyone is so brain dead they forgot that a 2/3rds vote of Congress can remove this liability.
So what is congress supposed to do, hold the vote right now since CO and ME had a TDS fit and went rogue ?
Since the 2/3rds removal provision is present, EVERYONE is missing the boat. Except me, of course.
In Griffin’s case Chase concluded that a congressional enabling act was required to authorise disqualification. Blackman and Tillman have written a long article explaining this. I think a criminal conviction for a federal crime of insurrection or rebellion would also suffice. In the absence of either, the court could hold that state authorities may not disqualify.
Chutkan held that immunity did NOT apply to official acts. So that is the issue at stake. She did not decide whether what Trump did was official or not. So the court could reverse Chutkan and remand to consider whether Trump was engaged in official acts.
“Chutkan held that immunity did NOT apply to official acts.”
I assume that you meant criminal acts, if done as official acts (assuming that there are any such things, which I doubt). She held that “Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office.” Not acts in general.
The relevant paragraph:
“Defendant contends that the Constitution grants him “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility” while he served as President of the United States, so long as he was not both impeached and convicted for those actions. Immunity Motion at 8, 11–13 (formatting modified). The Constitution’s text, structure, and history do not support that contention. No court—or any other branch of government—has ever accepted it. And this court will not so hold. Whatever immunities a sitting President may enjoy, the United States has only one Chief Executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong “get-out-of-jail-free” pass. Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability. Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office.”
Correct. The question being appealed is whether the President may be subject to criminal liability for acts taken within the outer perimeter of his official authority. Chutkan said yes. The court could reverse that and remand to decide whether what he did was within that outer perimeter.
Well, the DCCA already said he can face civil suits for the same acts, so arguably they don’t find it within the outer perimeter.
“originally written to prevent Georgia from electing Alexander Stephens to the senate,”
That is a straight up lie.
There’s no guarantee that SCOTUS will even grant cert to the immunity challenge. That will depend on the Court of Appeals’ ruling. For example, as this amicus brief from American Oversight “argues, Supreme Court precedent prohibits a criminal defendant from immediately appealing an order denying immunity unless the claimed immunity is based on “an explicit statutory or constitutional guarantee that trial will not occur.” Trump’s claims of immunity rests on no such explicit guarantee. Therefore, given that Trump has not been convicted or sentenced, his appeal is premature. The D.C. Circuit lacks appellate jurisdiction and should dismiss the appeal and return the case to district court for trial promptly.” (quoting their description in an overview page). Midland Asphalt v US is a key case here.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24245907-american-oversight-amicus-brief-in-support-of-dismissal-for-lack-of-jurisdiction-us-v-donald-trump
If the DCCA were to deny Trump’s appeal on that basis, SCOTUS might just deny cert.
I doubt that they’ll find (1) to be true. The Constitution more than once refers to the presidency as an office. I doubt they’ll find (2) to be true, since it wasn’t true historically, and it confuses a civil issue (14A s3) with a criminal issue (conviction of the crime of insurrection). I doubt they’ll find (3) to be true in CO at least, where there was a 5 day civil trial for this civil issue. In ME, the issue will now work its way through the state courts, and presumably there will be a civil trial there too.
“On immunity, I think there is a fair chance the court could conclude there is absolute immunity for official acts …”
When you said this previously, I asked you to elaborate, and you referred to Obama ordering the death of al Awlaki. You referred to it as murder, but you did not prove that it met the legal standards of murder, much less that it was murder AND that Obama shouldn’t have been charged with it. Will you elaborate now on why you’re convinced both that it met the legal standard of murder and also that Obama shouldn’t have been charged?
And are there any other crimes you think the President can legally commit as part of his official duties?
“I think the court will avoid having to decide whether Trump engaged in an insurrection or rebellion.”
Because they have no authority to do so. Only a jury of his peers does.
14a3—–>14a5—–>18 USC 2383
Trump has not even been _charged_ with insurrection, let alone convicted.
That doesn’t matter. Alexander Stephens was never charged either, and yet he was disqualified until Congress removed his disqualification.
Trump is not disqualified for at least five different reasons, but that is not one of them.
He wasnt prevented from being elected either. That is a lie
He wasnt prevented from being elected either. That is a lie
Unless you do something more than ‘no he wasn’t, you are the laziest of trolls. What happened? you provide zero facts to support your claim
Well, since Stephens was the VP of the Confederacy and even engaged in negotiations on behalf of the rebels to end the Civil War, one could cite the name of this blog
“Alexander Stephens . . .”
You keep citing alleged precedent. (Though war time is not precedent for anything, except war time.) Yet you keep ignoring the Jefferson Davis case. Why is that?
The SCOTUS must come down hard on this and yes I know the Chief Justice likes Unanimous votes and mini justice but these mini results just result in endless litigation and attempts to circumvent the mini-decisions. A clear evidence of this is the is NY state and their endless run arounds on the 2nd amendment. I don’t regard Gore vs Bush as divisive. The Gore team blew their appeal and wanted recounts mainly in democratic areas and it was the democratic areas that screwed up their ballot. They forgot equal protection under the law.
The democrats have shown their colors ever since Obama came on the stage “with his pen”. He is the epitome of the zealot but he is just covered in a nice conventional wrapper. He could not overtly “transform the country” when he was President because it was too obvious but with the catspaw of a brain dead Biden, Obama works quietly and effectively behind the scene. This is what he drove. Is it any surprise that race relations went off the rails when Obama was president.
The democrats tent is starting to collapse as working people (not the union officials) Hispanics, African Americans and some immigrants who came here to actually live the American Dream are leaving the party in droves. They see the Democratic Party as destructive to that dream. The Recent Census update has showed almost 4 million Americans have left the Blue States and gone (almost exclusively) to the 11 states of the old confederacy. I want to see the real figures of the census counts that were sequested by Biden. Obama did the same thing in 2010 and moved census reporting to the WH. Strange is it not.
Leftists are leftists and they act the same no matter where they are. The Supreme Court in Israel is trying to usurp the government and is self appointed and far left now compared to the rest of an increasingly right leaning Israel. They decried the judicial reform bill as not having a big enough majority when they try to overrule the legislation by 8-7. I guess they don’t understand irony. This is legislation the Supreme Court of Israel is not even supposed to have judicial review of.
Gen Milley said he could not understand “white rage”. Well he should know that is not the question. It’s the Rage of the Right who see the left doing change “by any means necessary” including disregarding law and the constitution.
GEB
Well stated!
GEB,
Well said.
GEB — You are completely wrong about matters in Israel. In particular, the justices are not “self-appointed”.
If, in this case, “self-appointed means appointed by the court, GEB is correct. That leads to rule, not by law, but by mindset.
By the president, fool:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Israel
David, when you target someone calling them a fool, make sure your head isn’t the target. First, read to the end of the sentence, “upon nomination by the Judicial Selection Committee.” Then, figure out what the whole sentence means.
“This method gives the Supreme Court justices themselves veto power over the identity of their future colleagues, as no Supreme Court justice can be selected without the consent of current justices on the committee. Obviously, this judicial selection method is highly undemocratic.”
https://www.jns.org/israels-unique-judicial-selection-method-and-its-shortcomings/
S. Meyer — I thought you could read plain English. The *appointment* is by the president. In principle he need not agree with the nomination of the committee and require them to try again.
In the US, the prez asks a committee of his assistants to ‘nominate’ justices and the prez appoints from the nominees. Obviously highly undemocratic, so don’t throw stones.
Reread this. “This method gives the Supreme Court justices themselves veto power over the identity of their future colleagues, as no Supreme Court justice can be selected without the consent of current justices on the committee.”
If there is veto power, the system is controlled by those who hold the veto. It’s a horrible system.
Your understanding of appointments to the SC in the US is lacking. The President’s appointments are exclusive to him, not a committee unless he desires one. The Senate approves the nominee. The Judicial branch has no say in the process. The President and Senate are elected officials. That is what Israel wishes to move toward, rather than the justices being able to choose only those they want sitting beside them.
Turley doesn’t recognize that he has become a zealot in the legal system.
enigmainblackcom wrote, “Turley doesn’t recognize that he has become a zealot in the legal system.”
That’s an absolutely ABSURD claim!
I view your comment as pure ad hominem and as such should be recognized as pure trolling from a progressive hack.
Or better put, enigma lays another turd
Arguing for the truth and to follow the actual law is hardly being a zealot. Ridiculous accusation.
Sounds like I struck a nerve.
enigmainblack, you know better than that, facts and evidence do not apply to Trump supporters.
Fishy smell, right on time with a steaming turd^^^
Oh good goody for me. I’m such a little putz. I struck a nerve weehee. I’m no longer useless.
Enigma, of course, a nerve was struck. You engaged in the character assassination of a fine man and legal scholar because you don’t like unbiased opinions that you cannot argue against..
“unbiased opinions”
Do you know Jonathan Turley?
Sea Lion Alert!!!!^^^^
“unbiased opinions” Do you know Jonathan Turley?”
Yes, and I know you as well. Character assassination typically comes from your mouth. Why not prove your case with an in-context quote from Turley and what you find to be biased?
“In our cynical politics, Bellows and Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, among others, have become wildly popular for seeking to complete the effort to defeat Trump by removing him from the ballot. This cynicism is captured in statements from pundits who warn that Democrats can no longer rely on the election process, given Trump’s soaring popularity.
One columnist wrote that “Democrats may have to act radically to deny Donald Trump the 2024 Republican nomination. We cannot rely on Republicans to do it…Trump must be defeated. No matter what it takes.”*
Many Democratic jurists and officials have refused to participate in this cynical effort to win the election through the courts. Maine’s Democratic U.S. Rep. Jared Golden denounced Bellows decision. California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) warned Democrats against embracing this legal theory. His state’s secretary of state Shirley Weber (D) had refused to do what Bellows just did.
Yet Democrats know that they need only to remove Trump from the ballots of a couple of key states to make him constitutionally incapable of becoming president, due to the electoral college. Thus, Trump could be the overwhelming choice of the voters but still be effectively barred from assuming office.”
This is from the story being discussed. Turley is off on a long-winded rant about Democrats (crediting all for the behavior of a few) while making no mention of those who favor “suspending the Constitution” as Trump has and locking up his enemies in Congress and the media. You can say he’s welcome to have and express any opinion but Turley is hardly unbiased.
Enigma, you are so biased, you can’t even read.
***Many*** Democratic jurists and officials **have refused** to participate in this cynical effort to win the election through the courts. “
“Maine’s Democratic U.S. Rep. Jared Golden denounced Bellows decision. California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) warned Democrats against embracing this legal theory. His state’s secretary of state Shirley Weber (D) had **refused** to do what Bellows just did.”
What is wrong with you?
How many Republicans has he cited for anything? Maybe you don’t understand the meaning of bias?
Enigma, I have to ask again: what is wrong with you? Republicans have not committed this stupid action that is destructive to the nation, so he can’t list any. Are you that dense? He is talking about a dangerous process that neither Republicans nor Democrats should engage in.
Your bias is non-stop.
“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-call-suspend-constitution-gop-debate-chris-christie-1822131
Enigma, again I have to ask what is wrong with you? You can lie, but cannot think.
You did not strike a nerve.
You made an incredibly stupid comment and attack on the good professor.
When others point out your stupidity, you made another stupid comment.
What the good professor is doing and has been doing is pointing out the gross corruption of the FBI, the DOJ, the IRS and others to protect the BCF, weaponize these institutions against their political opponents and anyone who dissents against the DNC narrative.
The good professor is not only pointing out to what lengths these zealots are willing to go to “get Trump,” to include embracing anti-democracy tactics that totalitarian countries like Iran, but trying to warn us how dangerous woke leftism is.
If only the “good professor” would take that plank out of his eye.
It’s difficult to hear the truth. The Democrats are the party of government and the government is out of control, and failing. You support Democrats, so, in essence, it’s your fault for so many problems. As the Muslims ransacked the world by demanding convert or die to all they encounter. The same choice should be offered to Democrats, convert to Trump, or our civilization dies.
“As the Muslims ransacked the world by demanding convert or die to all they encounter. ”
There’s this religion called Christianity you really should study. “Convert or Die!” was one of the cries from the Crusades.
https://redeeminggod.com/convert-or-die/
“We the people of the United States…secure the Blessings of Liberty
TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY….”
German and Italian Fascists operated the same in the 1930’s!
Democrats fought a Civil War against America previously….they are doing it agian!
The Party should be abolished! We need to jail 1000’s of Democrat CRIMINALS from across Government….Russian Hoax, Protecting Democrat/RINO leader bribery crimes scams with family and cronies, J6 entrapment, Coverup of Democrat leader crimes…like the Biden Laptop, etc. JAIL THEM BY THE 1000’s…use a Nuremberg like Trial!
Trump spearhead an illegal two month long multifaceted attempted coup that ended in violence. The 14A is clear that people who do that are not eligible for public office. None of what he did is disputed.
Trump does not meet the qualifications to br President under the Constitution. This is no different than if he was 33 yo, an immigrant, or had already served two terms.
Of course one can not rely on the ballot box to defeat Trump because he is likely to try another coup. Republicans have been planting loyalist in importance election positions to make the next attempt more likely to succeed. Republicans have supported his coup attempt and relying on the courts to stand up against Trump a second time is dicey, especially when he is not even eligible in the first place.
Metamucil Sammy with another steaming turd
That seems to be your standard answer if a comment is factually right, but you just don’t like it.
Nothing you said was factually right but a comment made by a zealot.
Case in point you see a conspiracy that only exists in your TDS mind.
What did I say that is not correct?
No, its reserved for steaming turds like yours above, that deserve no response.
Some justices may prefer this cup to pass from their lips. The divisive opinion in Bush v. Gore from 2000 still reverberates to this day.
I see no part of the Bush v Gore decision being divisive.
“I see no part of the Bush v Gore decision being divisive.”
There was the part about niow allowing a complete recount in Florida. Imagine if any of the multiple 2020 recounts Trump got had been stopped if it looked like he was getting closer (as opposed to the reality of further behind). You would have freaked out.
For the record, I believe part of the Florida Supreme Court decisions was made to achieve a result as opposed to having a basis in law and there may have been grounds to overturn them.
There was the part about niow allowing a complete recount in Florida
Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding,Ding, Ding, Ding, We have player! COME ON DOWN!
For the prize behind door #1 what was the case before the Florida Supreme Court being heard on appeal? That would be the case, allowing FSC to issue an order demand a state wide recount, neither candidate wanted.
“Florida Supreme Court decisions was made to achieve a result”
Which they had ZERO authority to do.
At least not on the grounds I recall.
“Colorado may seek to moot the appeal, since the ballot would remain unchanged with Trump’s name on it.”
Colorado has publicly stated they are leaving trump. But the courts have NOT reversed their ruling. The Ruling still stands, until overturned.
“Maine’s Shenna Bellows . . . declared Trump an ‘insurrectionist’ . . .” (JT)
So she, a bureaucrat, is judge, jury, and executioner.
Charming.
The number of progressives that believe in this theory is the disheartening aspect of this stupidity. There will always be useful idiots unfortunately.
Anonymous wrote, “The number of progressives that believe in this theory is the disheartening aspect of this stupidity. There will always be useful idiots unfortunately.”
https://stevewitherspoonhome.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/cantfixstupid.jpg