Fnord

Link According to two Law School professors that are expert Constitutional scholars, the 14 Amendment is pretty unambiguous. DJT should be disqualified for running for office based on his actions (and inaction) on Jan. 6. Both of these experts have ties to the conservative Federalist Society, which is responsible for vetting and suggesting all of Trump's SCOTUS nominees, so it's not like they're deranged liberals. The paper they wrote hasn't been published yet, but you can read it by clicking 'download this paper' here. The paper's abstract: "Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal consequences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three. First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election." Direct quotes from the conclusion of the paper: "The most politically explosive application of Section Three to the events of January 6, is at the same time the most straightforward. In our view, on the basis of the public record, former President Donald J. Trump is constitutionally disqualified from again being President (or holding any other covered office) because of his role in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 election and the events leading to the January 6 attack. The case for disqualification is strong. There is abundant evidence that Trump deliberately set out to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election result, calling it “stolen” and “rigged”; that Trump (with the assistance of others) pursued numerous schemes to effectuate this objective; that among these were efforts to alter the vote counts of several states by force, by fraud, or by intended intimidation of state election officials, to pressure or persuade state legislatures and/or courts unlawfully to overturn state election results, to assemble and induce others to submit bogus slates of competing state electors, to persuade or pressure Congress to refuse to count electors’ votes submitted by several states, and finally, to pressure the Vice President unconstitutionally to overturn state election results in his role of presiding over the counting of electors’ votes. Leading up to January 6, Trump repeatedly solicited, suborned, and pressured Vice President Mike Pence to prevent the counting of the electoral votes in favor of President-elect Biden. Not only that: Trump assembled a large crowd to march on the Capitol and intimidate Congress and the Vice President into complying with his wishes and thereby prevent the official counting of the votes of electors confirming Trump’s defeat. Trump had announced on Twitter a protest to be held on January 6, 2021: “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!” According to testimony amassed by the House’s January 6th Commission, Trump’s supporters interpreted this as a call to arms, sometimes literally. Then there are the events of January 6 specifically. When January 6 arrived, Trump delivered an incendiary address at the White House Ellipse to the crowd of supporters he had effectively summoned to the Capitol to oppose what he had been calling the “steal” of the election. Trump reiterated his false claim that he had in fact won the election—“we won this election and we won it by a landslide”—but that the Democrats and the media had “stolen” the election and “rigged” a false outcome. “They rigged it like they’ve never rigged an election before,” he charged. “Make no mistake, this election was stolen from you, from me and from the country. … This [is] the most corrupt election in the history, maybe of the world.” The crowd was “gathered together in the heart of our nation’s capital for one very, very basic and simple reason: To save our democracy.” Trump called on the crowd to march on the Capitol. “Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore and that’s what this is all about. … We will stop the steal.” He urged the assembled mass of thousands, some of whom Trump knew to be armed, to “fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore.” Some might quibble that the speech is ambiguous. Not all of Trump’s rambling address called literally for the crowd to “fight.” Some of his statements were ambiguous and at one point he remarked that the crowd would be marching “peacefully and patriotically.” He never directly and literally called for attacking the Capitol or the Vice President. Much of what might be thought incitement to lawlessness was innuendo. Nonetheless, the general and specific message was that the election had been stolen; that a constitutional fraud of colossal proportions and cataclysmic consequence was in the process of being perpetrated on the nation; that the crowd needed to take “strong” and direct action to protect the country; and that immediate action was necessary to prevent Vice President Pence and Congress from ratifying the unconstitutional election of an illegitimate president and doing irreparable damage to the nation. These ambiguities have given rise to a debate about whether Trump’s speech did or did not cross the strict incitement threshold of Brandenburg v. Ohio. It could well be that it did cross the line: Trump had deliberately assembled the mob of supporters, steeled them to action, knew that they were ready to take immediate action, and directed them to take it. But the most important thing is that the Brandenburg question is beside the point. Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment does not enact the legal standard of Brandenburg v. Ohio. It enacts the standard of having “engaged] in insurrection,” or given “aid or comfort” to those doing so, and qualifies, modifies, or simply satisfies the First Amendment to the extent of any conflict between these constitutional principles. First Amendment or no, the speech was part of Trump’s participation in and support for the insurrection. Finally, as events unfolded and the violence began, Trump maintained silence—and indeed deliberate indifference bordering on tacit encouragement—for what had by that time clearly become a forcible insurrection. For three hours after learning that his supporters had forcibly invaded the Capitol and were disrupting the constitutional process, Trump took no action to urge them to leave, despite being begged to do so by his advisors and despite having a constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. During this same period, while the insurrection was in progress and after the Capitol had been breached, he again condemned Vice President Pence for not “hav[ing] the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution,” a statement that the January 6th Commission concluded was “a statement that could only further enrage the mob” and that in fact apparently did so. Once Trump finally did – after several hours and with great reluctance—direct his supporters to leave the Capitol, they quickly dispersed. This culpable inaction—failing to intervene to stop an insurrection in progress, declining to act to arrest a violent uprising, despite having both the capacity and responsibility to intervene—is another crucial part of Trump’s responsibility for the January 6 insurrection. Section Three reaches a broad range of conduct providing meaningful assistance to or support for acts of insurrection or rebellion performed by others, even quite passively.440 Sitting by and doing nothing—declining to act to arrest a violent uprising, despite possessing the material capacity and legal responsibility to intervene—might qualify. Additionally and equally important, Trump’s deliberate inaction renders his January 6 speech much more incriminating in hindsight, because it makes it even less plausible (if it was ever plausible) that the crowd’s reaction was all a big mistake or misunderstanding. Taking these events as a whole, and judging them under the standard of Section Three, it is unquestionably fair to say that Trump “engaged in” the January 6 insurrection through both his actions and his inaction. Officials—administrators, courts, legislators—whose responsibilities call upon them to apply Section Three properly and lawfully may, indeed must, take action within their powers to preclude Trump from holding future office." This guy should immediately be disqualified from holding any elected office. It's right there in the constitution, with plenty of legal precedent.

You telling me I don't understand our legal system is funny. You've removed all doubt from any of our minds that you certainly don't.

The paper addresses Brandenburg and the rest of your "concerns." I even included part of the paper's conclusion, which mentions it directly.

Unlike MAGAmooks, I put more trust in the judicial system that told Trump and his team 60+ times to stick it than I do DC Draino, who should take up drinking Draino.

Do you know how to read? It doesn't necessarily matter given the context.

I had the same thought initially. But the authors of the paper address that.

This dude hasn't met my wife.

This is the way it should be. Legally, he should be prevented from even running, due to not being legally eligible, per the constitution of the U.S.

Right wing media has swallowed them. This is a good opinion from French attempting to explain the foolishness. Too many years spent listening to lying hate mongers like Limbaugh, Carlson, Levin, et al. demonizing everything and everyone liberal, then social media algorithms amplify the stupidity to the point of normalizing all the anti-democratic behavior. MAGAmooks' identities are so closely tied to their political leanings that they wont be able to let it go, unless the right wing media at large also changes its tune. But we've seen what happens when even Fox dares to question the MAGA idiocy. Viewers leave in favor of even dumber, less responsible media outlets so they can continue to hear what they want to hear. Even if Donald Trump is chased off the campaign trail in disgrace and sentenced to decades in prison, the best- case scenario is that these people will quietly shut up and keep their opinions to themselves, all the while resentful of the perceived persecution they have undergone. They'll just wait until the next twisted demagogue emerges and crawl back out from under the rocks to support their new messiah.

None of them want to. You're doing yeoman's work in here, but it's been explained ad nauseum, supported with links to actual court docs, etc. They will not accept there is any difference. Or how epically stupid Trump is to have gotten into this situation in the first place.

If this is what's going on (I haven't looked into this story) then I've got a big fukkin problem with the appointment.

Some funny stuff in here for sure. But I also see several that look less like hypocrisy and more like reassessing new data and coming to different conclusions than those once held. I get LC and the MAGAmooks misunderstanding this and labeling it as hypocrisy. We know that they are mostly incapable of changing their initial opinions about anything, regardless of evidence.

I appreciate you admitting that this is a moral contradiction that you choose to acknowledge and live with. I do not agree with you necessarily, but you seem to have a level of emotional maturity that most adults do not, and that is awesome.

I'm referring to your many incongruent, nearly incoherent posts in this thread today, slappy. And I'm in my safe space, right here in the GC.

Did you forget to take your psyche meds today? You sound like Joe Biden 5 days into an epic LSD bender. Delusional.

Like Donald Trump, for instance? Your average middle school civics student would have been more qualified for POTUS.

Try holding your breath.

I wonder how many millions of taxpayer dollars this ass hat has wasted filing lawsuits that get tossed out of court over the past few decades?

So you're okay justifying the Democratic overreach as an eye for an eye scenario? With Trump being the prosecutory engine of the DOJ to exact his vengeance? What could possibly go wrong?

Random selection of Judges. You're right. It is the same.

JFC you are obtuse. They aren't "in his pocket" just because that's how many he got last time. This has been explained to you at least a dozen times. You just don't listen because it runs contrary to your feelings. MAGAmooks and their feelings are never to be questioned!

How do you explain Aileen Cannon then? She's made any number of questionable pro-Trump rulings. But for some reason she was "randomly chosen" by the Dems? This reasoning gets us nowhere.

You keep saying this, but it's not true. Just more evidence that MAGAmooks believe what they're told without any independent thought.

I appreciate your reasoning, and consider you to be one of the best posters here when it comes to political discussion. But Trump isn't making this a secret. He's actively campaigning on this. Sorry, but if you think Biden's DOJ is railroading Trump but you're going to turn around and vote FOR Trump, you're a hypocritical fool at best.

Ignorance must be a real b!tch. But that's how this huckster got to where he is, so keep on supporting him, rubes.