Donald Trump: Classic or Dud?

We got him! 🤣

I have always had reverence for the institution of the Supreme Court of the United States, and I have that same reverence for the institution and the current court that I have had my entire life.

Oh wait, I think I see a problem.

How severely do you have to be Ludovico Treatment-ed before you just automatically barf out something like that?

It would seem to me that the Constitution is “bad politics” of late, 2A aside

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3huT9iemFTg

i'm so god damn fucking sick of wasting any time whatsoever thinking about this motherfucker! all time dude

I hear you

Death Was His Art, Dying Himself Would Be His Masterpiece

Maybe it's just semantics, but I find the pundits saying, "let the people decide" a bit disingenuous--considering that losing the popular vote was no impediment to Trump taking office, the argument is more accurately, "let the electoral college decide." I think there's been compelling arguments over the last few years that letting the EC decide isn't that much fairer.

this seems like a situation where Dems should probably take care not to let the GOP control the narrative like they always do, since "the voters should decide, not the courts" misses the point, which is that it's The Constitution that bars him from running - you know, that sacred document they all claim they love so much.

"let the people decide" is just a populist dog-whistle, nothing more

the 'people' don't get to decide most things in the US, but playing to the idea of a country established for and run by the people is the same kinda bullshit Juan Peron used to get 'elected'

Don't cry for me Orange County

the luttig argument is interesting, but since trump hasn't (yet) been convicted of something adjacent to "insurrection," i don't think the supreme court will uphold the colorado ruling.

xxpost like when Mitch McConnell used that famous canard re: SCOTUS it was the same thing. providing the illusion of 'control' which is like red meat to low-info voters who think the government is guilty of 'overreach'.

voters get to vote for people on the ballot in the primary, and in the election, they don't get to decide the rules for who is eligible to run, or what the Constitution actually means.

even if (and when) the attempt to remove him from the ballot fails, the alternative was...not trying that at all, which basically is a huge batman signal to the Republican party that "all of the things we do will no longer meet with resistance, they've finally given up".

SCOTUS has already gone rogue. if and when they overturn the ruling, it will be purely because the 6 Republican justices prefer he be in office and nothing more than that.

they will give it legal rationale, either saying that provision of the 14th amendment doesn't apply to Presidents, or some other excuse, but the whole "not convicted" thing doesn't matter. even if he was convicted tomorrow, SCOTUS would probably overturn the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling. focusing on the criminal trial misses the point. if SCOTUS is going to overturn the decision, it's going to do so no matter what happens because they've already shown they just rule the way they feel like it.

there is no requirement to achieve a conviction first and I doubt the drafters of the 14th Amendment ever intended it to be a requirement. as said upthread, it was to keep Confederates from reigniting their cause by infiltrating the government. I sincerely doubt they would have required anything other than "He fought for the South" as evidence. this amendment has already been used for lower offices to keep people who participated in January 6th from running, some of whom were not yet convicted either. even with Trump committing these crimes literally in his last two weeks in office, he won't start his trial until the next Presidential primary is already underway. the amendment provision is fundamentally toothless if it requires a criminal conviction first for this reason

I think the only legitimate question here is whether the President is an "officer of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Dud

Don't cry for me Orange County

in fact, Couy Griffin, who was removed from his county commission post in New Mexico using the Insurrection Clause, was only found guilty of trespassing, and acquitted of disorderly conduct. and yet he was already removed and barred from running again, and nobody appealed it beyond New Mexico's Supreme Court because they don't give a fuck about a lowly county commissioner.

xpost yeah that seems to be the main legal challenge dividing experts.

even if (and when) the attempt to remove him from the ballot fails, the alternative was...not trying that at all, which basically is a huge batman signal to the Republican party that "all of the things we do will no longer meet with resistance, they've finally given up".

hence why social media and a couple posters here implying that This Doesn't Matter annoys me.

I think the only legitimate question here is whether the President is an "officer of the United States"

I haven’t seen the argument, but how is he not?

The phrase is not defined in the text.

I just wish the Democratic party was capable of more bravely swarming when there's blood in the water rather than questioning if the blood means the wounded fish is actually getting stronger

He can't go under with three barrels on him.

More weight

hence why social media and a couple posters here implying that This Doesn't Matter annoys me.

heavily otm

this amendment has already been used for lower offices to keep people who participated in January 6th from running, some of whom were not yet convicted either.

Has it been used for people who were not physically present at the Capitol?

The insurrection language was put in the Constitution after an actual war. Trump's role is the insurrection has been clearly defined and Jack Smith is not even bothering to try to convict him of insurrection because it's difficult to prove. It may be self evident to us, but not to a hundred million people or so.

has not been clearly defined

Like, yeah, you didn't need a trial to decided if someone was a Confederate because there were records identifying them

Also, establishment Republican types would love to have Trump yanked out of the election. They wouldn't have to deal with him anymore and they could still bitch about it.

Like, yeah, you didn't need a trial to decided if someone was a Confederate because there were records identifying them

― Beyond Goo and Evol (President Keyes), Thursday, December 21, 2023 2:13 PM bookmarkflaglink

that's goalpost moving. You require a criminal conviction for Trump for the invocation of the Insurrection Clause to be valid, yet it's fine for Confederates to be barred simply for being Confederates....because being a Confederate is inherently insurrection? Ok, but not in the eyes of the law as it pertains to that person. Even when you commit a crime out in the open that's witnessed by thousands of people, criminally speaking you are innocent until proven guilty (or until you plead guilty). Not to mention, similar to McCarthyism, civilians could easily have been misidentified as aiding the Confederacy.

In fact, J.D. Watkins, a District Attorney, was disqualified from office for the nebulous reason of "engaged in the rebellion", but no specific details as to what he actually did ever emerged. Most noteworthy is during that case, the Louisiana Supreme Court established in their ruling that Section 3 of Amendment 14 ("Insurrection Clause") is not a criminal punishment, merely a requirement for office, and thus state courts can enforce it.

A.F. Gregory, a Postmaster, was removed from his post by the Postmaster General, and no actual rationale was given, just that it fell under the Insurrection Clause.

John H. Christy was removed from his post for offering aid and encouragement to Confederates, but it was never established what he specifically did.

None of these three were ever charged or convicted with a crime. All of their removals stuck and only one court (Louisiana Supreme Court) even reviewed the case and upheld the removal.

No criminal conviction is required because this is a prerequisite for office and not a criminal punishment - so just like "being a member of or aiding the Confederacy" was enough to disqualify 6 individuals in the 19th century, a state court ruling Trump's actions amount to insurrection is sufficient as well. In the history of its usage, the expectation always seems to be that either by action (refusing to seat a candidate that won an election) or filing of a lawsuit, someone seeks to remove a candidate from office on Insurrection grounds, and that state courts are eligible to rule on the merits.

None of the legal experts I've read in the last three days who have brought up the significant legal challenges with this ruling have mentioned the lack of a criminal conviction. almost all of them have pointed to whether this clause applies to the Presidency or not.

yet it's fine for Confederates to be barred simply for being Confederates....because being a Confederate is inherently insurrection?

There was a literal war against the United States. These are two quite different things.

God every time I listen to a Dead C record it's like I can't listen to anything else for several days

xp I'm not paying the slightest attention to a poster who thinks that "COVID is over", you've lost what little legitimacy you had left on this board, just go away

I'll say it more simply here - in 1869, the precedent was set by the Louisiana Supreme Court that the Insurrection Clause can be enforced via civil lawsuits at the state court level, because it is not a criminal matter. It's a civil lawsuit. If I'm sued in civil court for assault, I don't beat the charges by merely yelling "well I was never arrested or convicted so they have no case" - I mean, I can try that, but it's not a winning strategy. Civil court has a much lower burden of proof required. and state Supreme Courts can adjudicate civil matters like these.

SCOTUS will of course reverse this but it will have nothing to do with anything based in legal rationale and everything to do with "lol fuck u libs" and we know this because people like Alito, Kavanaugh, and Thomas outright say things that amount to that, on the record.

I still think the easiest thing is for them to default back to the trial court's judgment that the section doesn't apply to the president. That way they're not imposing their view, they're upholding a lower court ruling and revering the state supreme court. Sure it leaves open the possibility of an insurrectionist getting elected president, but on balance that's not likely to happen very often — just next year, is all.

I just wish his decades of terrible eating and no exercise would finally catch up with him, but of fucking course not.

I think the only legitimate question here is whether the President is an "officer of the United States"

The phrase is not defined in the text.

If you are required to take an oath of office to "protect preserve and defend the Consitution of the United States" then you are an officer of the US government. It was phrased that way to ensure that all the former US Army officers who fought for the confederacy would be included, along with all the former US congressmen or Cabinet officers in the CSA government. It probably swept in a lot of postmasters, too.

That still doesn't answer the question whether it applies to POTUS.

I'd say the chances the Supreme Court says it does are slim to none, and slim left town.

hold on, Thaddeus Stevens is booked on Rachel Maddow's show tonight.

btw I haven't watched him in ages but Chris Hayes tried answering these questions last night:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTlPd0yuH1c

The 1869 Louisiana precedent was likely not challenged because the court was using the clause as it was intended, against people who had participated in a war against America. It is being challenged 150 years later because it's being used in a case about whether a sitting President incited a mob, or didn't do enough to calm the mob down.

That still doesn't answer the question whether it applies to POTUS.

He stood up on a podium in front of "the largest crowd ever for an Inauguration" and took the Oath of Office. Only the most tortured rationalizing could somehow deny that simple fact. So, it's right up Alito's alley.

I think the only legitimate question here is whether the President is an "officer of the United States"

I just heard some Harvard professor on the radio, and he said that the Constitution uses that term 25 times in describing duties of the President

Aimless undoubtedly otm.

I mean, he didn't just incite a mob: he attempted a coup.

I feel like I'm on a merry-go-round here.

The only requirement for disqualification, once again, is having "participated in insurrection or rebellion against the United States". Not "having fought or participated in a civil war", not "having been convicted in criminal court of these offenses". It has already been used successfully to oust a city commissioner within the last two years, for a level of participation far below what Trump did (this was for someone who merely showed up to it).

You're also getting stuck on "well the Civil War was a war against America, so of course we don't need a trial, those soldiers wore uniforms" - yeah, no shit, but humoring you for a moment that a criminal conviction is required to disqualify Trump (which it is not), the same would hold true for being a part of the Confederacy. You can't have it both ways. The relative 'obviousness' of whether someone was a Confederate soldier or not doesn't matter - if you believe a conviction in court is required, then these Confederate sympathizers would similarly need to convicted first. Just like how in criminal court you don't forfeit the right to a trial because 1,000 people saw you do it and someone recorded you doing it. There's not a rotating set of standards based on context, here. You either believe a conviction is required or you don't believe it, and what I'm saying is only 1 of the 6 people disqualified in the 19th century was charged and convicted of anything. 3 of them, it's unclear what their role with the Confederacy even was.

Because, as I've already said, it's not as cut and dried as you keep implying. You have soldiers and army officers in the Confederacy, sure, but three of the people I listed who were removed in the 19th century as per this Amendment were not soldiers or officers of the Confederacy, and what they were accused of doing to aid the Confederacy was vague - it could have been as simple as, like, going to a meeting where Confederates were gathered, or writing something that seemed supportive of them. or donating money.

These extra caveats you keep insisting are requirements are your own artistic license.

xxxxposts

like let's not pretend there's going to be any legal pretext for the dismissal. Clarence Thomas and Alito are, to differing degrees, Originalists, and if they were going to rule in good faith, would not take the context of the amendment Section 3 being a byproduct of Civil War times, and don't view the Constitution as a living breathing thing.

except when the Originalist reading would warrant them ruling in a way they personally don't like.