Does the constitution prohibit Trump from serving as president?

They are fracturing the country.

 

Wait, what? LOL.

 

Simple fact is Biden isn't making the argument about the 14th Amendment, the DOJ isn't making this argument, and the Democratic Party isn't making the argument. It is four lawyers, three of whom are conservatives who belong to the Federalist Society, one of whom is a highly respected retired federal judge. And it's an argument about the constitution with regard to the political process and eligibility under the 14th. So in other words, it's a constitutional (and thus also a political) argument about a political process.

 

How else would you characterize throwing the kitchen sink at your arch political rival literally trying to lock him in prison during the heart of campaign season?

This topic of this thread is just piling on.

 

Luttig at this point, though a genuine authority, needs to be taken with a grain of salt based on his comments on Trump in the past. The man has drawn plans to overthrow the 2024 election by Trump out of sheer conjecture and now he's saying that no formal criminal or impeachment process is necessary to disqualify.

If we're actually supposed to interpret the Constitution that broadly, might as well just do away with elections because they mean nothing anymore. An election subject to the approval of some arbitrary singular unelected authority is not really an election at all. It's theater to let people think they actually have a say when all they're posed with is the "illusion of choice."

 

How is the constitution being broadly interpreted?

And even if it is a broad interpretation--and I don't know that to be the case-- how does this get to "might as well do away with elections?"

 

This is especially true when no showing of guilt is even required. Just some arbitrary singular unelected bureaucrat saying "Trump is disqualified because insurrection." That's the broadest interpretation of that imaginable. Most would think at least an impeachment or criminal conviction was required. Something worthy of judicial notice, not something that is genuinely disputed by the public without any sort of formal trial or proceeding.

If we need the "okay" from one unelected authority nobody even knows for anyone to be permitted to run for President, that's not an election. I think you'd see the problem if that "one unelected bureaucrat" was Rupert Murdoch.

 

91 felony counts served up by 4 different grand juries...that isn't one elected official.

 

1. Indictments aren't convictions.
2. It's not hard to indict somebody. New York state chief judge, Sol Wachtler, famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.”
3. I was talking about the insurrection claim disqualifying Trump. According to the article in the OP, that's supposed to be "self-executing," no conviction or official proceeding apparently is needed.

"Based on the influence of the prosecutor, who (other than the court reporter) is the only non-juror present and who selects the evidence to present, various studies have suggested that the rate of indictment by a grand jury ranges from approximately 95% to approximately 99%."

A Crash Course in the American Grand Jury System.

 

My thought is the people who crafted the 14th amendment couldn’t conceive of somebody trying to overturn an election and overthrow our government and then still be the leader of a political party. I must confess that I am having a hard time believing it myself.

 

Considering we just had a civil war at the time the 14th Amendment was passed, I'm not sure if that's true.

 

For starters, right now, it's simply constitutional experts making public arguments about a possible constitutional issue regarding a candidate who was involved in an insurrection. I'm not sure who would be able to make such a decision were this argument taken up, though it would be a matter of determining whether Trump's involvement was enough to fall within the scope of 14a in disqualifying him as these lawyers contend. But the language of 14a, section 3, however, doesn't require actual conviction or impeachment to disqualify a person, so I'd disagree that either would be a requirement. It's also not some threat to the entire electoral process given that section 3 is precisely about disqualifying factors related to participation in insurrections or treason.

This is why I questioned why you called it broad. Jan 6 is most definitely within the realm of what section 3 is about. Whether specifically Trump's actions are disqualifying would or rather, might be a matter to be determined. Or maybe it won't be. Other hand, it can certainly be argued that there isn't precedent for such a disqualification specific to a former president running again for office so in this regard, it's never been an issue with respect to presidential candidates being involved in an insurrection either.

 

And some idiots think we are about to have another.

 

I disagree. Now who settles our disagreement and how? We used to have this thing called courts and trials for things like this.

Here's what I do know, nobody gave individual members of the Federalist Society (or Judge Luttig) binding legal authority to unilaterally settle issues of Constitutional Law.

 

If Trump would have just shut his yap from Feb-Nov 2020, he would have won the election by a landslide and getting ready to wrap up his 2nd Term rn

 

I think what you meant to say is Trump threw the kitchen sink at himself and is now trying to blame Biden

 

You would think that common sense would keep him from serving as president again. But in this country today that's irrelevant. Instead, whether a traitorous, authoritarian, mentally ill POS should lead America becomes an academic constitutional question. What a sick joke.

 

the J6 committee and the mountains of evidence with most testimony from Republicans and from his own attorney general and VP are evidence enough under the 14th. that isn't a single politician either. him on tape discussing sharing plans for invasion of iran and then them finding the documents in his place of residence is not one politician.

 

not possible. he doesn't possess the impulse control to not hit send. The J6 judge is going to have to take away his electronic devices or jail him. Just a matter of time.

 

I'm sure that's exactly what they conceived of actually, ex-confederates running for office and gaining power