Section 3 of the 14th Amendment

@Commodore doesnt care about how government works.

 

If the public elects Trump in spite of a criminal conviction, it will demonstrate a (well deserved) complete loss of faith in the criminal justice system

 

No, all it would show is that trumpers are anti education, pro stupid, mindless, gullible dumbf-cks and America is a third rate country.

 

What it will prove is that republicans are so desperate for power that they wanted to elect a known rapist, fraud, cheat, liar, and convicted criminal who attempted to overthrow the government. Someone that is anti-law enforcement, anti-military, and anti-democracy. How and why the republican party got to this point with be studied by historians well into the future, but we are here now.

 

I can respect the argument that the office of the president's absence from the list in Section 3 is conspicuous. The other arguments look dumb.

But I don't want this gambit to work anyway, so maybe that's why I'm amenable.

Or the rule of law, in general.

 

Yes that would be a sign of the loss of faith in the rule of law and they populism can triumph over principle.

People like to talks about the decline of America and that would be a huge sign of the decline of America when politics can Trump (pun absolutely intended) principle.

 

Amazing how much harm we have allowed trump to cause...

 

I suspect the courts will drag this out, hoping they won't have to rule on something like this, and also hope that there will never be another criminal running for president. Though knowing that the republican party will come up up with someone just as bad...

 

Keep on lighting that fire, and sooner or later, the entire Constitution will burn down.

 

MAGA cultists be like...

 

I always thought 'officer of the United States' covers it. Historians can chime in. The statement below should be fairly easy to verify.

https://www.theusconstitution.org/b...-under-section-3-of-the-fourteenth-amendment/

Section 3 was adopted principally to prevent “Officers of the United States” who joined the Confederacy from reclaiming power in the Reconstruction government. Its drafters hardly would have exempted a turncoat president.

And they didn’t. In the mid-nineteenth century, as today, the president fell within the ordinary meaning of “officer.” Members of the 39th Congress, which proposed the Amendment, repeatedly referred to the president as an officer.

Historically, the distinguishing feature of an “officer” is that they swore an oath. And while Mr. Mukasey is correct that Article II, separately from Article IV, mandates a presidential oath, lawmakers made no distinction between these oaths for the purpose of Section 3.

Mr. Mukasey insists that case law says elected officials are not “officers.” But the lines he quotes, arguably powerful standing alone, are irrelevant to the question here. One pertains to which lower-level federal officials are “Officers,” while the other simply notes that presidents are accountable for such officials because they are not elected.

Mr. Mukasey may think that an election is the preferable way to keep Trump from office, but under the Fourteenth Amendment, Trump’s not qualified to serve.

 

All this to defend the actions of donald trump...

 

Even back then, the office of President would have been front of mind. It would probably be the first thing the writers thought of. They mention Senators and Reps, they even mention electors of the President. There is no way that the absence of President from the list is a simple oversight. It was intentionally excepted.

Which makes sense to me, historically. After the civil war, there would be Confederates elected to Congress by Southern states where they were popular and be foisted upon the northern states, who after all would have to live with the consequences of these elections they have no control over. But, the presidency is the only office for which the entire country votes. If a Confederate ran for president and the majority of the country actually voted for him, why should he be denied. The northern states had their say at the ballot box. What's more, I notice it really only applies to oathbreakers -- so if convicted insurrectionist Stewart Rhodes was elected, it wouldn't apply to him because he'd never sworn an oath to the Constitution -- which makes it the mildest of protections against the election of insurrectionists. It seems to me that the authors, even while trying to lock some out of office, were trying to be as completely unobtrusive as possible and not stand in the way of people voting for who they want.

I've googled around a bit for the history of how this amendment was written. After all, it probably had many congressmen as authors and editors on it to get it just so, so it'd pass all the hurdles to get into the Constitution. There were probably debates about whether the presidency should be in or out. Somehow, I came up empty on how this process was actually worked out -- it was probably some guys in a back room with Chatham House rules. Which is a shame, because I'd like to know what people were thinking when they said they should not enumerate the office of president.

I did find this good article about it, though, from back in the second impeachment days (ironically I was linked to it by another article that claimed scholarship agrees the presidency should be included, only to find it saying the opposite): Is the President an “officer of the United States” for purposes of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment? (reason.com). These arguments from early 2021 seem to be much the same as Trump is making now.

 

I will read your link and Google more when I have time. However, my initial reading was as follows:

There are three parts of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Part one states, 'No person shall hold any office under the U.S. if (see part two).' Part two stipulates, 'If having taken an oath to support the Constitution as an officer of the U.S. (or other conditions).' Part three is an opt-out mechanism by Congress.

The phrase 'hold any office under the U.S.' seems pretty clear. Electors do not hold office of the U.S., so it makes sense to call them out separately. Members of Congress seem to fall under 'office under the U.S.,' but perhaps that's not correct. The Constitution refers to the POTUS as holding an "office", but it refers to members of Congress as the Senate and House of Representatives and holding "seats". I don't recall it referring to members of Congress holding an "office". But I remember multiple references to "office" for the POTUS. The impeachment clause of the POTUS also refer to "office". The oath of the incoming POTUS also says "office". (BTW, electors cast votes for the POTUS, so clearly this section has POTUS in mind)

Part two is, I think, Trump's lawyer's claim that "officer of the United States" does not refer to the POTUS. Again, I point back to the Constitution referring to the President as holding an "office".

No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and VicePresident, 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.​

 

now that I've completed my dissertation on Argentine electoral politics, I'm ready to focus my energies on A14, Section 3...

actually, I think this is all somewhat academic, since even if Trump is declared ineligible, there is still a +50% chance he would get nominated (sequence of events might matter), and atm, a considerable likelihood he would defeat Biden. Assuming Roberts refused to swear him in, does that even matter, constitutionally (I don't know)? I think on Jan 20 he automagically becomes president, sworn or not, but I'm happy to be corrected on that point.

but let's suppose he doesn't. what then? does the choice of president then move to the house?

all of which is a very long way to say, those of you hoping for Trump to be declared ineligible, and think it guarantees a Biden reelection, might want to rethink.

The country, and the Democratic Party, would be far better served by offering an alternative.

...and I remain hopeful that republican primary voters will do their part, and nominate the person who would be virtually certain to be the first female president.

Nimrata > either Nimrod.