Section 3 of the 14th Amendment

No media coverage and screen time have nothing to do with election in America at all. That's why there is no money spent on campaigns. Donors are all just wasting there money because money can only buy ads and door knocks. Worthless right?

 

But that's the problem - if it's OK for Maine to have a single person decide, it doesn't matter if it's incredibly difficult. You just need a willing SoS to make the argument and court willing to agree. Does anyone think the Texas Supreme Court would have any issues justifying anything?

The federal courts need to come up with a black-and-white metric that isn't fungible or we'll just have a tit-for-tat system like we did with Biden impeachment hearings even though there is no basis. Always assume that whatever you think is the lowest people will go, they will go further.

 

But who and how do we determine if someone engaged in insurrection? I'm saying a very clear line would be charging them with insurrection.

Most people are talking about what CAN be done. I'm arguing about what should be, for the long-term health of the country. If it's so obvious Trump engaged in insurrection (and I agree that he probably did), why not just charge him with it and let a court decide it officially? It takes the political aspect out of the picture.

 

Agree that it would force the issue on the USSC. But in the meantime, the more we "normalize" these things, the closer we get to the end of a legitimate functioning democracy.

The courts completely destroyed the Trump voter fraud arguments and yet like a third of the country believes it happened and the 2020 election was not legitimate simply because he managed to normalize the idea. The sham impeachment hearings have also been normalized.

Democracy only works if people believe in the processes and outcomes. As we do more things to make people question or distrust the system, the less likely democracy continues to work. You become more like the banana republics that have "democracies". You'll have votes and outcomes that people don't trust, and politicians who are no longer accountable to the people.

 

You think DeSantis didn't get media coverage? He was the savior of the party from Trump. When he first launched his campaign, he got tons of coverage and was flush with cash. He was interviewed by every network that he wanted (he avoided mainstream media except FOX - but that was his choice because he determined they were the enemy). It was when he was on GOP voters' screens that they realized they actually didn't like him and his polling numbers went down. As I said, the more people saw of him, the further his polls have dropped.

Compare that to someone like Haley, who actually didn't get any coverage as a 2%er. Then as voters saw more of her (in the debates, in particular), they liked her and her poll numbers started going up and she started getting more coverage. Probably too little in a party that still loves Trump, but it shows that the DeSantis outcome was not inevitable and it actually is possible to gain in the polls despite Trump.

Claiming that DeSantis is a victim is complete and utter nonsense. Lack of media attention has never been his problem.

 

the 14th amendment only disqualifies those who "engage" in insurrection. personally, i think incitement counts as engagement and he definitely incited the insurrection, but could trumpers make that argument in his favor?

 

If the events of the insurrection and coup was limited to simply the day of Jan. 6th, that might be different. But since there were months of planning in which he was definitely involved, I wouldn't think it would be too difficult to determine.

 

I don't think you can have a functioning democracy if you do things or don't do things because you fear that the trump/maga/republicans will do worse things. You either have a system based on laws or you don't. trump is a perfect example of what republicans will do. And if he wins it will only get worse. Much worse. Hoping, or relying on trump/maga/republicans not doing worse things... that is a fools errand.

 

Sure - you absolutely want a system of laws. *Clear and defined* laws. The problem is that we don't have a clear definition of "engaging in insurrection" unless there is a definitive standard for it. The fact that we're even having this discussion is evidence that the standard is not clear. And when you have different states and different courts interpreting things differently, that is the exact purpose of the Supreme Court.

 

That's true - but the appeals process is irrelevant. Once a court convicts, you're guilty until an appeal finds otherwise. If a murderer is found guilty, they are still convicted and in jail throughout the appeals process. So the issue is just investigation, indictment, and trial, and technically there will have been 4 years for that. If it's as clear cut and straightforward as we'd think, that should be plenty of time - if they wanted to charge him.

That's fine if its not the criminal standard and not the civil standard. But in a nation of laws, there has to be *some* standard, and that's what we don't have for now.

 

Absolutely agree on all of this. Its kind of crazy that the Amendment was left this vague, but its absolutely imperative that the USSC sets a standard for all of these. At least that way, everyone knows and is on the same page.

 

I think you are going to be very disappointed if you wait and rely on the current supreme court to provide you with such "clear and defined" laws and standards. This court is clearly a political body, and will more than likely simply rule in the easiest and quickest way that helps trump. Instead of coming back with a "clear and defined" standard or law, I bet they kick that can down the road, and instead either send it back to the states without to define (the four corners stall), or at most will narrowly rule in such a way that favors trump, then kick the rest back to the states to iron out the rest. Expecting this court to rule that trump's actions satisfied the 14A is unrealistic. Heck... I bet even Kavanaugh will rule against his own ruling in Colorado.

As a result, you will be no closer to "clear and defined" laws and trump will be the republican nominee for president.

 

By SoS or whoever judges qualifications. Court challenges can happen, and they can weigh in. That's our standard process, and it's the same for all other disqualifications.

Specifically on this case, I had the same thought - see this post

Then I listened to a Lawfare podcast on the case and read the CO decision (my own summary here). The Colorado trial court did just that; it was a trial without a jury but nonetheless a court trial with factual findings, and it concluded Trump engaged in insurrection.

Now, the 14th Amendment language doesn’t require that you need to be convicted of insurrection, and these conservative legal scholars actually argue that due process (among others rights) is superseded.

EDIT: What should be done is what's being done—A state court has made a decision, and now it's up to the SCOTUS to make the final decision. I just hope the SCOTUS does not find some loophole or technicality to get around making a direct decision. Now's not the time to punt this can down the road (there likely won't be another chance and this is exactly what the court is for).

 

But here's the thing - I'm not saying that the court should rule that Trump's actions satisfied the 14A. I want them to rule on a standard of some sort. If it favors Trump or not, so be it. The goal, in a society of laws, should be to have a very clear standard. The 14A didn't provide it. Congress clearly isn't. The states can't agree. So it falls on the Supreme Court.

While I personally think Trump engaged in insurrection, I don't think me or a bunch of other people believing it necessarily should even qualify. That's not a clear standard. And I don't think it's good for the long-term health of the country to have vague standards.

 

Fair points and thank you for those references. I just joined this thread recently and missed those.

Agree here. I just want the USSC to make a definitive ruling one or another.

 

Again, what will your position be if the ussc rules narrowly in favor of trump (eg, the CO rule stands but the ussc also rules that trump didn't meet whatever standard of insurrection)? Or if the ussc completely kicks it back to CO and chooses to not rule one way or another (but in the process, delays make the state's decision moot)?

 

I think the intention of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is quite clear, and the historical background (Civil War) pushes Congress to ensure that no former Confederate of any significant standing can again run for office. The only remedy is a 2/3 vote by Congress. I don't believe a presidential pardon or general amnesty by the POTUS is even sufficient, as it clearly states what the remedy is.

Given this, and together with the fact that there were NO widespread indictments or convictions of former Confederates on charges of rebellion, it tells you that conviction was not a necessary requirement. Congress at the time simply wanted no former insurrectionists or rebellionists to run for office again.

But at the same time, Reconstruction was a period of reconciliation and rebuilding. Former Confederates aren't being punished (there were some, but not extraordinary) and are welcomed back, just not back into the power of political office.

The eligibility standard, being a unique and somewhat arbitrary standard, is historically consistent and acceptable. There are still plenty of people who can be eligible, so err more on the side of making sure that pool is a 'clean' pool. If you are even being judged for insurrection, you should really not be qualified, and that should mostly be fine. As a society, we should demand much higher standard for high office.

 

It wasn't organized... not planned. But these insurrectionists even had t-shirts made...

 

While talking of standards and burdens of proof... I'm not sure "THEY HAD T-SHIRTS MADE!" is a good standard for anything.