Trump & Constitutional Amendment 14, Section 3
Trump & Constitutional Amendment 14, Section 3, J.P. Jefferson Posting
Trump & Constitutional Amendment 14, Section 3
Should Donald Trump be on the ballot in 2024? Now before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), appealed from the recent 4-3 decision of the Colorado Supreme Court. I’m pretty sure that the Trump-loaded SCOTUS will find some bizarre interpretation of the obvious and allow the 4-time indicted, twice-impeached former President, with 91 criminal charges to run again. I also think it is fascinating that the two leading challengers to Trump’s GOP campaign — Haley & DeSantis — are both saying that we should let the people decide, rather than following the law. What a new and innovative way to handle high-level legal matters in this country.
Anyway, Constitutional Amendment 14, Section 3 (14-3), couldn’t be clearer, and the intent of the Congressional drafters is also clear (discussed in the Colorado decision). We’ve known about 14-3 and the potential legal chaos it would cause if it wasn’t resolved before the 2024 election. I was one of the many people who called for this issue to be addressed and dealt with months and months ago. And, it’s clear that a resolution can only be made by a decision of SCOTUS. However, in typical American government fashion, advance planning is rarely on the agenda, and as predicted we are now in the middle of an active Presidential campaign, and a legal nightmare threatening the fabric of our sacred U.S. election process. Had this been resolved before the presidential campaign much of this legal drama could have been avoided.
Following the Civil War, Congress decided that they didn’t want persons, who had previously taken an oath to support the Constitution, but who wanted to overthrow the government, shouldn’t be able to run for public office. They enacted the 14th Amendment, Section 3 as a new restriction/requirement in order to run for any public office. It all makes perfect sense. Why would you want to allow someone to run for office who took an oath to support the Constitution, but had been active in trying to overthrow the government OR to someone who assisted (“aid or comfort”) to those who tried to overthrow the government?
Even though the language and intent seem obvious, the drafters even provided a method to provide relief from the new requirement in case there might be some extreme extenuating circumstances. It had to be an extreme exception; that is why the tough, 2/3rd vote of Congress to exempt it, was required. So Congress could exempt Trump from the requirement and end the entire argument right now.
While it all seems straightforward, the legal beagles, fly-specking the language have come up with two major concerns. (1) is the Presidency really a “civil or military” “office,” and, (2) did Trump participate OR provide “aid or comfort” in an “insurrection” even though he has not yet been convicted?
On the first question, it’s hard to believe that the drafters would specify “a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold ANY office, civil or military” and not intend to include the President of the United States. Even if you could stretch your legal imagination to conclude that the “presidency” is not a public office; you would also have to determine the “Commander in Chief” is not the highest “office” in the U.S. “military.” You would also have to ask yourself, why the drafters wouldn’t want a Senator or Representative, etc. OR “an officer of the United States” to run for public office, but it would be fine to run for the presidency.
On the second question, while I don’t agree, I would say you can argue legally about whether Trump, “engaged in insurrection or rebellion,” since he has not yet been convicted; however, I think it is irrefutable that he provided “aid or comfort to the enemies” of the country. At the Washington DC Ellipse on January 6, 2021, there can be no question that Trump incited & encouraged radicals who have now been convicted & are serving time for seditious conspiracy and have been determined to be enemies of the state. Since then, Trump has continued his “aid or comfort” saying, if elected, he will pardon many of the enemies.
So, bottom line, it’s the Constitution, the language and intent seem clear; you have to follow it; amend it; or throw it out! What’s the precedent for other sections?
Access the complete 213-page Colorado Supreme Court 4-3 decision, plus dissents.
It’s been my feeling for quite some time Trump won’t be in it. I’ll not speculate as to why, it’s just a feeling: that in spite of all the strum and drang the repubs are about to learn a hard lesson in putting all their eggs in one basket. They don’t have anything to offer other than Trump, and I just don’t think he’s going to be in it. Maybe Romney/Cheney can save them
2023 ended on an upbeat note for Joe Biden/Dems:
– Economy booming, Dow breaking records
– Inflation, crime, rents, gas down
– Consumer sentiment rising sharply
– Nov elections were blue wave
– 15 polls now w/Biden tied/leading
– GOP is a historic shitshow
— Jan 6 declared an insurrection
By all measure better off than the end of 2019
(This place does weird things when I cut and paste from mine)
Ten Bears:
Try doing it in a c&p from Word.
‘He’s the only one that’s speaking the truth’: Trump’s fans trust nothing — except him
Boston Globe – just in
(The Globe has not had anything to say about the latest Trump developments, but this appeared this morning.)
It seems that you recommend we suspend “Audi alteram partem”, the part of Natural law that describes the requirement to “hear the other side”. Trump, has never been convicted of any crime. For example, Impeachment is not conviction. Even you should know that. Being suspected of or even indicted for an alleged crime in not the same thing as being found guilty. Many in this country are in hysterics trying to mute or otherwise suspend opinions that oppose what they think but what is “irrefutable”, to use your word, is this comment in Trump’s Jan. 6 speech: “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” That quote is from an analysis on NPR, hardly a Trump friendly site. So while all the foaming at the mouth you & others are doing to advocate for a conviction without trial system you must realize that this is a two edged sword and those who shout the loudest today might be the victims of similar persecution when the opposition inevitably takes power.
JJ
How many times did trump use the word “fight?”
So, now using the word fight is all the evidence one needs to prove guilt? I will fight to make sure your construct is never allowed to make such a determination. As Barack Obama once said: “…no one who fights for this country should have to fight for a job, or a roof over their head, or the care that they need when they come home.”
Two different uses of the word “fight.” Keep trying though.
trump never fought for his country, for you, and for anything but himself. At XMiitary, I resent your comparison deeply. That piece of garbage should be in prison.
The justices do not have the option to send the case back to the senate and tell the 13 Republican senators that claimed they did not have jurisdiction that, Yes, they did have jurisdiction and they must cast their votes on such a basis.
In the absence of a jury trail it is the justice’s job to weigh the evidence.
The Colorado court held a five day trial and found him “guilty” by “clear and convincing evidence”.
I’m not a lawyer, but negotiated detailed large sales and service contracts with airlines. I dealt with our lawyers and the customers’ lawyers very frequently….daily or multiple times a day. One of the things emphasized repeatedly to negotiating teams was that itemized lists are presumed complete. While I cannot tell you why President and Vice President do not show up in the amendment, the fact is they don’t. Other constitutionally established positions do; Senator, Representative and electors. Again, I do not know the motivation of these choices and it seems quite odd to carve President and Vice President out of this, but that looks like exactly what was done here. To specify the electors for those positions but not the positions seems absurd, yet to think that leaving them out to rely on indirect language seems at least as absurd. In the current specific Colorado case, it is rather amazing that the judge and then Supreme Court did not find that the matter of insurrection is a federal concern and once a legitimate federal authority found a candidate in violation of the 13th amendment, they could act on the issue of the ballot. Right now, nothing from the Trump era has caused anyone to be charged with insurrection and considering the volume of cases fully disposed of coming from January 6 riot, I would fully expect none are going to show up(and if suspiciously and suddenly some show up soon, I would expect the courts to question it aggressively that they do not proceed. As far as I can tell the last time the federal government did anything with the Insurrection Act was to provide California for aid during the Rodney King disturbances of 1992. This is important, but being important should mean carefully establishing the predicate here via charges and jury verdicts. I deviate a bit from many critics of the Colorado decision in that it does not feel partisan. As I mentioned here some days ago, it is a dumb move to put electoral votes your party will probably win into any kind of controversy.
With the Supreme Court you don’t have to be a lawyer to analyze and predict it. It is a political institution. In my opinion it is highly unlikely that they will let the Colorado result stand and your argument is as good as any for them to reverse it.
Eric:
My question to you; “What is a paragraph?”
Eric
Wikipedia
As another commenter (from the Lincoln Project) observed, the dissenters on the Colorado Supreme Court did not dispute the evidence rulings of the trial court although they were challenged by Trump and the Republican Party. The U.S. Supreme Court has its work cut out for it in finding a rationale for reversing this ruling.
Jefferson Davis was not convicted of treason or sedition either. Precedent is not so clear on this.
FWIW, Jefferson Davis (Senator from Mississippi, 1857-61) would not have sworn the same oath used today, which came into use once the CIvil War was under way.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
At the start of each new Congress, in January of every odd-numbered year, one-third of senators take the oath of office to begin their new terms. While the oath-taking practice dates back to the First Congress in 1789, the current oath is a product of the 1860s, drafted during the Civil War.
The Constitution contains an oath of office for the president of the United States. For other officials, including members of Congress, that document specifies only that they “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution.” In 1789 the First Congress adopted a simple oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”
At the outbreak of the Civil War in April of 1861, a time of uncertain and shifting loyalties, President Abraham Lincoln ordered all federal civilian employees within the executive branch to take an expanded oath. At the conclusion of its emergency session that summer, Congress adopted legislation requiring executive branch employees to take the expanded oath in support of the Union. In July 1862 Congress added a new section to the oath, which became known as the “Ironclad Test Oath.” The Test Oath required civilian and military officials to swear or affirm that they had never aided or encouraged “persons engaged in armed hostility” against the United States. Government employees who swore falsely would be prosecuted for perjury and forever denied federal employment. Congress also revised the rest of the oath with language that closely resembles the modern oath. …
US Senate website – About the Senate & the U.S. Constitution | Oath of Office
Are you willing to argue that therefore Davis did not commit treason? In fact, even if there had been a trial of Davis, AND even if he had been acquitted, it is simply not credible to argue that Davis had not committed treason by acting as president of the Confederacy. An acquittal of Davis of the charge of treason would only be a miscarriage of justice, or the result of fear of possible political repercussions, or fear of a renewal of armed hostilities, or at the very least, a result of bureaucratic and political fecklessness. An acquittal of Davis in an actual trial for treason would not eliminate, an should not be allowed to obviate, the historical record created by Davis’s actions and words. Only Davis would have thought he had been vindicated, and anyone else who thought he had been vindicated, would have ensured that the Union dead had indeed died in vain. Even if there had been a dutiful adherence to “due process,” Davis would have remained unacceptable for filling the post of President of the United States.
Al Capone was never tried for being a gangster and a murderer. Capone was convicted and jailed for tax evasion. Are we therefore to believe that Capone was never a gangster and a murderer?
Jesse Waters on Fox argued that “Five years after the Civil War, pro-slavery Democrats filled the halls of Congress, and 15 years later, pro-slavery Confederates actually flipped the House – 51 former Confederate soldiers or officials were elected into office. Even the vice president of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, an arch secessionist, landed a seat in Congress.” I argue that this historical record of former Confederates being allowed back into positions of power — the failure of Reconstruction, the reestablishment of white supremacy in the Confederate states, and the century-long pain and humiliation of African Americans under Jim Crow — fully vindicates the views and wisdom of intents of the Radical Republicans, who wanted a ruthless application of justice imposed vindictively on all former Confederate leaders.
I’m not sure why these people are so willing to accept that Henry Kissinger was a war criminal, despite there never having been such finding in a legal proceeding with due process, or that Israel is now engaging in war crimes in Gaza, but are freaking out that Trump is being sanctioned as an insurrectionist. 2 Corinthians 3:6
I would agree that the Confederacy was a treasonous undertaking.
Once the war was over & the Union was restored, Lincoln had wanted healing to happen. He wasn’t around to see it, but there was apparently no stomach for prosecuting Confederates. Robert E. Lee’s Virginia estate had been confiscated and became Arlington National Cemetary, at least.
Supreme Court Won’t Hear Case on Trump’s Immunity Defense for Now
NY Times – just in
Supreme Court won’t fast-track ruling on whether Trump can be prosecuted in election subversion case
Boston Globe – just in
Hard to believe the court would let this case play all the way out and then reverse a conviction, if there is one, on immunity grounds but with this court, there’s no telling.
Jack:
When you run out of stories and the old ones don’t fit, then maybe you go back to the old ways.
or . . . “No mistakes in the tango, darling, not like life. It’s simple. That’s what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, get all tangled up, just tango on.”
It is just like life.
What better way to show fealty to Donald Trump than this?
Fred:
Will have an “open thread” up later today so you have some place to repost or write over the next couple of days. I intend to relax and I have a cold.
Fred, a great reminder on the history and importance of the “Oath of Office” in your post above. It seems that this has been lost in much of the discussion. A good place to back off of the ins and outs of the legal terminology and focus on the intent of the drafters and the basic reason for Const. 14-3.
We had just been through a Civil War, where the enemies of the republic had tried to overthrow the government and the Constitution of the “United” States. They did not want persons running for office who did not support the Republic or the Constitution. See Montpelier Daily Journal, Oct. 19, 1868 (writing that Section Three “excludes leading rebels from holding offices . . . from the Presidency downward”).
I assume that is still a reasonable expectation today as it was then. So, ask yourself, why would they then, or we now, want to allow someone to run for office who had taken the oath, but did not support the Constitution of the United States? Why would we advocate that it wasn’t all right for Senators, Representatives, and others specifically named, to run for office; but specifically exclude by omission, the President or Vice President. Now ask yourself, why would you want your Commander In Chief of the entire military to NOT TO SUPPORT THE REPUBLIC OR THE CONSTITUTION.
You can argue all you want about Donald Trump’s rights under the law and the fact that he has not been found guilty of insurrection; but the other part of the Const. 14-3 test is did he: provide “aid or comfort” in the insurrection “OR rebellion” to enemies of the country? Many legal minds are hung up on the precise definition and meaning of “insurrection;”, but the drafters made it easy to interpret by adding the “or rebellion” option.
Many enemies have been identified and convicted and are serving time in jail. Can you deny that Donald Trump did not incite the enemy (known to be armed btw) at the D.C. Ellipse on January 6, 2021? Can you deny that he observed and did not attempt to stop the insurrection or rebellion as it was taking place despite requests from many observers? Can you deny that he has said he supports and will pardon many of the convicted enemies? Can you deny that he has said he does not support the Constitution?
These factual matters provide clear and convincing proof that Trump fulfilled the second part of the Const. 14-3 test: He provided “aid or comfort” to the enemy. His disqualification also falls within the obvious intent of the Constitutional requirement for a POTUS.
Interestingly, the Colorado Supreme Court decision and dissent do not specifically address the issue of the “aid or comfort” clause. It is also interesting that the decision DOES address the fact that the President & Vice President are not specifically listed, but are intended to be included in the language of “hold any office, civil or military, under the United States” (see pp. 77-78). Also, while “military” office is included in Const. 14-3, there is no specific discussion about the Commander In Chief or military offices.
Gettysburg Address: A short speech long remembered
Seattle Times – November 19, 2013
(After Gettysburg, Lincoln was concerned about ‘putting the nation back together’. The process was aborted due to pressure from leaders in the South, but that is perhaps why leaders of the Confederacy were not tried & convicted for sedition.
In any case, Lincoln was not around to see it through.)
It’s one thing to make a law (if that’s what the 14th Amendment really is), it’s another thing to enforce it.
More of a ‘guideline’ really.
Fred:
Do not trash Robert’s posts with numerous Copy and Pastes.
I don’t believe I did that at all. I was only slightly surprised when the Supremes came up with an unattributed, unoriginal one-line denial. They are obviously not being paid enough.
Clarification of court decisions on Constitutional Amendment 14, Section 3.
General media reporting, various headlines, and news bites have left the impression that the Michigan & Minnesota Supreme Court decisions are in direct contrast to the Colorado decision. This is not the case. It is important to distinguish between eligibility for the primary election as opposed to the general election.
Below, as explained by Elizabeth M. Welch who wrote a dissent in the Michigan case, is a summarized legal explanation.
“Significantly, Colorado’s election laws differ from Michigan’s laws in a material way that is directly relevant to why the appellants in this case are not entitled to the relief they seek concerning the presidential primary election in Michigan.”
There is “…no analogous provision in the Michigan Election Law that requires someone seeking the office of President of the United States to attest to their legal qualification to hold the office. . . [under Michigan law] the Secretary of State is not legally required to confirm the eligibility of potential presidential primary candidates.”
“I would affirm the Court of Appeals’ ruling on this issue, which still allows appellants to renew their legal efforts as to the Michigan general election later in 2024 should Trump become the Republican nominee for President of the United States or seek such office as an independent candidate…” [emphasis added]
CNN also reports that, “The Minnesota Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion last month, finding that an “insurrectionist ban” case involving Trump should be dismissed with regards to the GOP primary, but that the challengers could try again if he wins the nomination.”
Michigan Supreme Court Order
Thursday, December 28, 2023 [Update]
Maine Secretary of State Decision in Challenge to Trump Presidential Primary Petitions
Secretary of State Shenna Bellows issued the attached decision regarding three challenges brought by Maine voters to the nomination petition of Donald J. Trump, for the Republican primary for the President of the United States.
In the decision, Secretary Bellows said,
Secretary Bellows has suspended the effect of her decision until the Superior Court rules on any appeal, or the time to appeal has expired.
Access a Press Release from the SOS & link to the Maine decision.