the disqualification clause

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
 
Section 3 is self-executing in the same way that the Qualifications Clause is self-executing.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

It is the duty of any official (including governors) overseeing elections to make sure they comply with both the Qualifications Clause and the Disqualification Clause (Section 3 of the 14th amendment).
 
Last edited:
This question will have to be adjudicated. I expect lawsuits against states that allow very poorly chosen one on the ballot and against states that bar him from being on the ballot. It will have to go before federal courts because it is a constitutional question.

Btw a court in New Mexico has already ruled on this question and compelled a local official to resign from office and an appeals court has ruled that Madison Cawthorn is disqualified from appearing on a ballot (it became moot after he lost his primary).
 
Well if it's in the constitution it must be there for a reason.

I wonder if this will get any airtime during the debates.
 
Up until recently it has been an obscure topic that constitutional law scholars have been analyzing. I think with primaries and caucuses coming up the issue will soon be ripe for adjudication.
 
Last edited:
"The most pressing constitutional question facing our country at this moment, then, is whether we will abide by this clear command of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause," J. Michael Luttig and Laurence H. Tribe write:
 
In the case against Madison Cawthorn, a district judge ruled that an amnesty passed after the civil war applied to Cawthorn. This was overturned on appeal. Here is the appeals court ruling. The basic point of the appeals court is that the amnesty passed in 1872 applies to past acts of rebellion not future ones.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22036010-ruling-in-cawthorne-case-appeal

Note that the case was brought against the North Carolina State Board of Elections for including Cawthorn on the ballot. Every election official will have to weigh the applicability of the disqualification clause for very poorly chosen one (and others).
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
Doesn't matter what I say. The courts will rule on it. It is an issue that will be coming up soon.
Click to expand...

It’ll be amusing when the court is presented with an argument that was solely intended to be in regards to a civil war where hundreds of thousands were killed and tries to pretend the fedsurrection was on the same level.

Please I hope this is the argument but you can see how desperate the establishment is getting.
 
As the appeals court ruling in the Madison Cawthorn case indicates the disqualification clause (like the rest of the constitution) is meant to apply at all times, including prospective events sometime in the future. It was not meant just to apply retroactively to a past event, even though its formulation and adoption was influenced by that event.
 
But I do wonder where this logic will lead. Should white people sue every school/corporation that has ever hired a less qualified black person over them? I mean the equal protection clause surely wasn’t intended to right the wrongs done to black people. It was of course meant to ensure white people weren’t being persecuted too right?

I’m guessing you support this as well then right?
 
nsacpi said:
As the appeals court ruling in the Madison Cawthorn case indicates the disqualification clause (like the rest of the constitution) is meant to apply at all times, including prospective events sometime in the future. It was not meant just to apply retroactively to a past event, even though its formulation and adoption was influenced by that event.
Click to expand...

“INFLUENCED”

Hahahaha
 
thethe said:
But I do wonder where this logic will lead. Should white people sue every school/corporation that has ever hired a less qualified black person over them? I mean the equal protection clause surely wasn’t intended to right the wrongs done to black people. It was of course meant to ensure white people weren’t being persecuted too right?

I’m guessing you support this as well then right?
Click to expand...

Principles of redress are pretty well established. Usually when a court rules something is illegal it issues an order that leads to enforcement. If it wanted Harvard to pay Asians compensation, it could so order. Or it could order that Harvard simply stop certain practices. I believe any applicant who was turned down can sue Harvard for damages. Civil law contains provisions for them to pursue compensation for any harm suffered. There was a civil lawsuit, for example, against Trump University for a different kind of harm.
 
nsacpi said:
Principles of redress are pretty well established. Usually when a court rules something is illegal it issues an order that leads to enforcement. If it wanted Harvard to pay Asians compensation, it could so order. Or it could order that Harvard simply stop certain practices. I believe any applicant who was turned down can sue Harvard for damages. Civil law contains provisions for them to pursue compensation for any harm suffered. There was a civil lawsuit, for example, against Trump University for a different kind of harm.
Click to expand...

I just think that Asians and white should team up and bring class action lawsuits to every corporation that has engaged in some form of affirmative action.

Mind you - I believe that giving a little push to wrong the rights was a good idea but you’re starting the precedent so all is fair. Equal protection clause did not specifically pertain to black people. Now the whites and Asians who were subjugated to racism for the benefit of blacks whose families were enslaved should get their day in court!
 
nsacpi said:
Every piece of the constitution is influenced by past events but written to apply to future events. The disqualification clause is no different in that regard.
Click to expand...

Yeah you’re right. No different at all.

The fedsurrection was the same thing as the civil war - nsacpi
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top