Should Donald Trump be Disqualified From Holding Office?

[Fnord 2,187]

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First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation.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. 

[League Champion 1,909]

4 minutes ago, Fnord said:

This guy should immediately be disqualified from holding any elected offic

He doesn't hold any office. 

Let's work on getting the idiot that does hold office out. 

It amazes me how Liberals are so spun out about Trump still. 

[Fnord 2,187]

8 minutes ago, League Champion said:

He doesn't hold any office. 

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.

[avoiding injuries 1,555]

That’s been the plan all along, right?
 

Sorry, not happening. 

[seafoam1 2,917]

TDS strikes again. 

[RLLD 4,192]

I think that is integral to the strategy.   I think this started under the premise of maligning Trump to the fullest extend possible.  BUT, every time they drummed up some sh!t to throw at him his polls rose, so they shifted gears.

They decided to throw as much as possible at him so as to 1) impede his ability to be a candidate and then 2) to perhaps get something to stick, something that hopefully would eliminate him as a candidate.

That is where we find ourselves now, with a mix of just get him, no matter what it is......and maybe something can be used to somehow prevent him from being a candidate.

Whether this works remains to be seen. 

[seafoam1 2,917]

19 minutes ago, League Champion said:

He doesn't hold any office. 

Let's work on getting the idiot that does hold office out. 

It amazes me how Liberals are so spun out about Trump still. 

Even though it can't be cured, maybe Pfizer can come up with a shot and a few boosters to help the liberals with their TDS. 

 

[Mike Honcho 5,250]

It was used in New Mexico to remove a county commissioner last year.

Quote

 

A New Mexico state court judge ruled Thursday that the founder of the group "Cowboys for Trump" must be removed from his post as an Otero County commissioner due to his participation in the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol.

Judge Francis Mathew, of the 1st Judicial District Court in Santa Fe, ordered Couy Griffin to be stripped of his position effective immediately and permanently prohibited him from seeking or holding any federal or state position. In his ruling, Mathew said Griffin is barred from public office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment because he "engaged in" the Jan. 6 insurrection and became disqualified from serving in federal or state elected positions the day he participated in the Capitol assault.

 

 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,251]

25 minutes ago, Fnord said:

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.

Has he been charged with insurrection? 

[League Champion 1,909]

I love that we're discussing something that hasn't happened yet. 

[weepaws 3,167]

Not one person in government should be.  Amen. 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,314]

when was the insurrection?

but sure, he should be banned as should anyone who sold out america to foreign countries, remove him and Biden and lets start over and im in

 

[League Champion 1,909]

 

[IGotWorms 4,057]

As of now, no. He was not convicted of impeachment charges in the senate and he has not yet been tried on any of the numerous criminal indictments currently pending.

But if he is convicted, then yes, I believe he should be disqualified 

[Fnord 2,187]

1 minute ago, IGotWorms said:

As of now, no. He was not convicted of impeachment charges in the senate and he has not yet been tried on any of the numerous criminal indictments currently pending.

But if he is convicted, then yes, I believe he should be disqualified 

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

[Fnord 2,187]

26 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Has he been charged with insurrection? 

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

[League Champion 1,909]

 

[seafoam1 2,917]

6 minutes ago, League Champion said:

 

Loved that comment from that retard. "Shoplift bread or go hungry". 

[League Champion 1,909]

9 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

Loved that comment from that retard. "Shoplift bread or go hungry". 

I didn't know that you could eat a flat screen TV or sneakers. 

[IGotWorms 4,057]

15 minutes ago, Fnord said:

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

Well who makes that decision, and based on what? Seems to me it has to be Congress or a court of law

[Blue Horseshoe 348]

52 minutes ago, Fnord said:

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.

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. 

 

 

 

 

For the "Left" to force Trump from ever holding and/or running for public office again, based on J6, they need to find a way around the Brandenburg Test. 

From a legal standpoint, there is no way around it regarding Trump. Otherwise Trump would already be in the jackpot for J6 already. And this is Basic Law 101. 

I don't want Trump in professional politics ever again. I find him exhausting and he's a complete imbecile. I also find the "breach" of the Capitol on J6 to be indefensible. (However the rioters were only a small part of a much larger overall protest, in which the majority were law abiding and exercising their First Amendment rights. )  But Trump is still an American citizen. You can't stretch the law just because so many people actively despise him. 

Now if someone said to me that Brandenburg is antiquated and no longer is an effective "test" because of the new social media age and the speed of information in current society ( SCOTUS back then could not conceive of these kind of technological changes, they did the best they could given the time and place) , I'd actually agree with that. But Brandenburg currently is the law we have right now. If a political party effected actual and formal DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES to change the law, I don't have a problem with that either. But again, Brandenburg is what we all have right now. 

Also William Baude, the main author here, was appointed by Biden in 2021 to PCSCOTUS to explore "court packing" for SCOTUS. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Commission_on_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

The other "author", Michael Stokes Paulsen, said this before the 2016 general election -  "Donald Trump is himself a dangerous man, and should not be permitted to exercise power in any respect."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/10/supreme-court-2016-election-fewer-justices-would-curb-power/

Can "inaction", however Baude and Stokes Paulsen ( both clearly hard partisans against Trump and/or Conservatives, no matter how they are attempted to be labeled right now) want to try to define that, be used to show "specific intent" on the part of Trump during J6? 

Good luck trying to shovel that through any kind of fundamental basic legal scrutiny. It would take a string of outright partisans to force something like what Baude and Stokes Paulsen are suggesting all the way to SCOTUS. And it would never survive SCOTUS even if it made it that far. 

Game. Set. Match.

This is not one of those things where people can say,  "Well, everyone can have a different opinion"  To get Trump as proposed, you NEED to overcome Brandenburg. You also need to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, "specific intent"  That's basic fundamental law. Feel free to try to do both ( Baude and Stokes Paulsen avoided it completely) and let's see how far you get. 

[posty 2,673]

1 hour ago, Fnord said:

This guy should immediately be disqualified from holding any elected office. It's right there in the constitution, with plenty of legal precedent. 

Trump's name is in the constitution?

[seafoam1 2,917]

1 minute ago, League Champion said:

I didn't know that you could eat a flat screen TV or sneakers. 

Right. I've seen at least 100 videos of black people looting stores and never once did I see them taking a single loaf of bread, or a couple cans of food. 

Honestly, if I saw video of some dude trying to steal a single can of black beans or whatever, then maybe I would think they are hungry and in need. 

[Blue Horseshoe 348]

@Patented Phil , watch the activist radical leftists start to attack me now. 

Can't have anything that challenges "The Narrative", can we? 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,251]

29 minutes ago, Fnord said:

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

Well, when you’re disqualifying him for it I think it does. Try thinking for yourself, useful idiot. I want to fill you in in something: the job of a prosecutor is t to rummage around and find a charge, like this clown Smith did with the espionage bullshit. If you understood our legal system and the foundation it was built upon you would know that. Stay stupid.  

[Fnord 2,187]

10 minutes ago, Blue Horseshoe said:

 

 

 

 

For the "Left" to force Trump from ever holding and/or running for public office again, based on J6, they need to find a way around the Brandenburg Test. 

From a legal standpoint, there is no way around it regarding Trump. Otherwise Trump would already be in the jackpot for J6 already. And this is Basic Law 101. 

I don't want Trump in professional politics ever again. I find him exhausting and he's a complete imbecile. I also find the "breach" of the Capitol on J6 to be indefensible. (However the rioters were only a small part of a much larger overall protest, in which the majority were law abiding and exercising their First Amendment rights. )  But Trump is still an American citizen. You can't stretch the law just because so many people actively despise him. 

Now if someone said to me that Brandenburg is antiquated and no longer is an effective "test" because of the new social media age and the speed of information in current society ( SCOTUS back then could not conceive of these kind of technological changes, they did the best they could given the time and place) , I'd actually agree with that. But Brandenburg currently is the law we have right now. If a political party effected actual and formal DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES to change the law, I don't have a problem with that either. But again, Brandenburg is what we all have right now. 

Also William Baude, the main author here, was appointed by Biden in 2021 to PCSCOTUS to explore "court packing" for SCOTUS. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Commission_on_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

The other "author", Michael Stokes Paulsen, said this before the 2016 general election -  "Donald Trump is himself a dangerous man, and should not be permitted to exercise power in any respect."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/10/supreme-court-2016-election-fewer-justices-would-curb-power/

Can "inaction", however Baude and Stokes Paulsen ( both clearly hard partisans against Trump and/or Conservatives, no matter how they are attempted to be labeled right now) want to try to define that, be used to show "specific intent" on the part of Trump during J6? 

Good luck trying to shovel that through any kind of fundamental basic legal scrutiny. It would take a string of outright partisans to force something like what Baude and Stokes Paulsen are suggesting all the way to SCOTUS. And it would never survive SCOTUS even if it made it that far. 

Game. Set. Match.

This is not one of those things where people can say,  "Well, everyone can have a different opinion"  To get Trump as proposed, you NEED to overcome Brandenburg. You also need to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, "specific intent"  That's basic fundamental law. Feel free to try to do both ( Baude and Stokes Paulsen avoided it completely) and let's see how far you get. 

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

[Fnord 2,187]

3 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Well, when you’re disqualifying him for it I think it does. Try thinking for yourself, useful idiot. I want to fill you in in something: the job of a prosecutor is t to rummage around and find a charge, like this clown Smith did with the espionage bullshit. If you understood our legal system and the foundation it was built upon you would know that. Stay stupid.  

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. 

[seafoam1 2,917]

@Hawkeye21

And you think people will forget about Trump? Just read the TDS in this thread.

[Pimpadeaux 2,405]

Perhaps office on THE MOON.

https://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/topic/514421-father-trump-talk————true-american-badass—we-welcome-the-new-moses-with-open-arms-/?page=54&tab=comments#comment-7326831

[Hawkeye21 2,392]

1 minute ago, seafoam1 said:

@Hawkeye21

And you think people will forget about Trump? Just read the TDS in this thread.

I guess that's not very realistic.  I just think it won't be as bad.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,251]

11 minutes ago, Fnord said:

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. 

Sure. This is no different than a cop pulling someone over for an infraction and then writing up anything they can dream up and a judge going along with it. Let me educate you: The whole basis of our legal system is that the state shouldn’t be allowed to destroy the individual. Which is what’s going on here. 

[Blue Horseshoe 348]

24 minutes ago, Fnord said:

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

 

"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."

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751

 

******

"Brandenburg question is besides the point"  and "First Amendment or no"

So yes, Baude and Stokes Paulsen are completely avoiding the Brandenburg Test. 

They are attempting to say the 14th Amendment scenario they are presenting doesn't include Brandenburg at all ( in their viewpoint), so thus Brandenburg shouldn't count at all. That the only basis of examining the legal pathway of Trump and J6 is within some very narrow parameters that they've set out. ( Huge logical fallacy carpet bombing from them right here) 

And I'll say it again, if there was a legal "slam dunk" to wipe out Trump from running for 2024 POTUS, it would have happened already. 

[Blue Horseshoe 348]

 

[Tree of Knowledge 1,800]

Even if they conspire to keep Father Trump’s name off the ballot, patriots everywhere will write it in.  Trump cannot be stopped or contained.  

[weepaws 3,167]

Trump can get away with murder.  Sadly.  He can’t be trusted like the rest of the government.  

 

[Mike Honcho 5,250]

8 minutes ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

Even if they conspire to keep Father Trump’s name off the ballot, patriots everywhere will write it in.  Trump cannot be stopped or contained.  

Pretty sure a gentle uphill slope is all that would be needed to stop him.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,251]

Yeah, it so cut and dry that Trump is guilty that they have to massage and pervert the law to charge him, doing things that have never been done before.  

[League Champion 1,909]

I don't believe the left actually wants him in jail. That would certainly lead to bigger problems for the Dems. They'd be more than happy to bog him down come election time. And that's exactly what they're going to do. Just like last time. 

[Wade Garrett 155]

2 minutes ago, League Champion said:

I don't believe the left actually wants him in jail. That would certainly lead to bigger problems for the Dems. They'd be more than happy to bog him down come election time. And that's exactly what they're going to do. Just like last time. 

Nah, I want to see him in jail.

He's a worthless, criminal moron POS who almost ruined the country.

Jail is to good for him. 

[IGotWorms 4,057]

11 minutes ago, Wade Garrett said:

Nah, I want to see him in jail.

He's a worthless, criminal moron POS who almost ruined the country.

Jail is to good for him. 

He’s not going to jail, or prison even if he is convicted. Not just because he’s a former president either — he’s also just too fockin old.