2023-08-10 Trump is disqualified from being on any election ballots
2023-08-10 Trump is disqualified from being on any election ballots
Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment bans anyone from holding any federal office who has taken an oath to uphold...
This is The Way.
You're viewing a single thread.
The author is a moron.
Look, I get it, it would be great if Trump were prevented from running. And many people consider his actions around the 2020 election as tantamount to Insurrection. However, the current government doesn't just get to declare someone as having committed insurrection and ban them from holding office. And that's a very good thing.Stop and think for a moment, if the current government (likely the Executive Branch) has the power to declare that a person has committed insurrection and is now ineligible to run for office, what happens next? It doesn't take any stretch of the imagination to see how this gets weaponized. Every candidate will face claims of "insurrection" for any action or statement which disparages the current government. I swear, it's like the author wants a return of McCarthyism. Because, that's right where we'll end up. Thankfully, any attempts to strip Trump (or anyone else) of the right (and it's a right, not a privilege, the author can fuck right off with that attempted sleight of hand) to run for office will end up in court very quickly. And this is exactly where the question belongs.
If Trump committed insurrection, that needs to be proven in court. It's not something that we can just declare and start stripping him of rights. It sucks, because it's probably never going to be proven in court and so he'll probably never be barred from running. But, that also keeps the bar in place for other candidates in the future. As a parallel to this, let me point to the way in which the GOP attempted to weaponize the issue of Obama's birth to prevent him from running. The GOP knew they were in trouble. Obama was a popular candidate who was polling well. If they could find a way to disqualify him from running, they absolutely would have. And so they latched onto a narrative about Obama not being a "natural born citizen" and went full court press on that attack.
Now, let's extend this type of desperation to the author's idea that we return to McCarthyism (except the version we agree with!). Assume for a moment that we have a GOP President again (it's going to happen, it was only 7 years between Nixon leaving in disgrace and Regan stompping Carter). And the GOP candidate is polling poorly. Some genius in the GOP is going to start digging at social media posts, books, papers, and anything else put out by the DNC candidate and find something which can be cast in a negative light. They will claim "insurrection" and start pushing a media narrative. Sure, it'll be bullshit and may be widely recognized as bullshit. However, that won't matter. Because our author's plan to re-institute McCarthyism means that the sitting Executive Branch gets to decide what does and does not constitute "Insurrection". And wouldn't you just know it, this one bullshit thing that was dug up by a partisan hack just happens to fit today's definition. Sorry DNC candidate, you're now barred from running.
But that can't possibly happen, right? This is exactly what happens in corrupt states. Hell, even just the issue of impeachment has been weaponized by the GOP. The partisan hacks will use any weapon we give them to take and hold power. It's where McCarthy was headed in the 40's and 50's, seeking to prevent the "wrong" people from holding power. And it's where we'll end up if we allow this author's brand of stupid.
Yup, it's an almighty pain in the arse to have to prove that a person committed insurrection in a court of law. But, the Fifth Amendment's protections are incredibly important here. While yes, it protects this asshole, it also protects every candidate in the future from malicious actions of the government in the future.
The author is not a "moron". He is pointing out that there is a clear definition of Insurrection, and that under the 14th, once Insurrection has been found to have happened, that person may no longer run for office. End of story no more fucking legal bills no exceptions.
That is the 14th amendment, in essence; he quotes it chapter and verse, so I wont. Donald Trump is currently under 4 indictments and subject to 3 charges; go look 'em up yourself. There is no reason to suspect that there wont be more charges and/or indictments, or new charges added to existing cases against him as time moves on.
In fact, I think we can pretty much expect a steady stream; this guy cant stop committing crimes from one moment to then next to save his orange ass. He even hires lawyers that crime, and recently, lawyers that go on tv and admit to his crimes.
I don't think the author is saying this necessarily should or shouldn't be the case. The authors who wrote the paper he's referring to just set out to answer the question based on their constitutional knowledge and this is the conclusion they came to. They aren't even left wing either, these are Federalist Society associates.
The paper is available for download, it's 126 pages long. I'm on page
1849, and it's a steamroller. Oh yeah, and Calabresi, the author of your linked article, is cited in the NY Times article above.Edit: Just got to page 61, and there's a bit there which addresses your concerns.
For those (like us) who value First Amendment liberties of speech, press, assembly, religion, and the right to dissent generally, might Section Three therefore be thought a little dangerous? Might Section Three, in the wrong hands or applied improperly, be used to suppress dissent in the name of excluding insurrectionists from office? Perhaps. We do not shy away from the point. But the supposed danger of a constitutional provision is not really an argument against its meaning. And the potential abuse of a constitutional power, privilege, or disqualification is not really a good legal argument against its existence. Section Three’s exclusion could be thought to pose a danger; but insurrection and rebellion are dangers too—all too real dangers, as recent events have shown. Where exactly that line is drawn by the Constitution, and the extent to which that line changes the prior rules of the First Amendment, are ultimately questions of the meaning of Section Three’s general terms triggering disqualification from future office—“insurrection,” “rebellion,” “engaged in,” “given aid or comfort to”—and of who all is included under Section Three’s ban.
This conveniently ignores that Trump's situation is predicated on actual behavior during an actual honest-to-goodness insurrection (yes, it has been adjudicated an insurrection many times at this point, see Jan 6 convictions). He publicly and directly addressed the terrorist group Proud Boys in televised remarks, the group at the heart of the insurrection, whose leaders are now jailed for it, calling them to attention to "stand by". No one doubts he failed his constitutional duty to protect the transfer of power. He disavows it to this day! When they invaded the capitol in an insurrection, that made it a lot harder for some other presidential candidate to come to the table with the same resume for being barred from the ballot. If I were any candidate in the future and the bar were this high, I'd rest easy every day of the week.
GTFO with this slippery slope bullshit.