The Plain Language of the Disqualification Clause

nsacpi

nsacpi

Expects Yuge Games
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.
 
We have never seen such destruction of our systems of laws and governance like we have all to remove one person from running the country.

There is a reason for that.
 
acesfull86 said:
[tw]1740545903528722691[/tw]
Click to expand...

is it extraconstitutional or merely following the plain language of the 14th amendment

at a minimum i think it is open to discussion

i find it interesting that so far the dissents and rulings that have favored keeping very poorly chosen one on the ballot have focused on narrow procedural grounds that mainly have to do with state law...afaik there has not been a single ruling in his favor that has been made on a substantive basis...it will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court proceeds on this

at one level, i do think it is better for the people to decide...there is enough populist in me for that argument to have an appeal...but I also think the plain meaning of the constitution should be taken seriously...what if the people wanted to elect someone under 30? or a naturalized citizen? or someone who had already served two terms? all those things are prohibited...surely it is better to let the people decide

as for the definition of rebellion or insurrection i would say a multi-pronged plot (some aspects of which turned violent) to forestall the peaceful transition of power to a duly elected president falls easily within the definition

i also note that Justin Amash's complaint is about the lack of "due process"...yet Justin doesn't offer any guidance (afaik) as to what is appropriate due process when it comes to a constitutional question of this nature...due process on constitutional questions is somewhat different from due process in criminal law...and due process on election law is different from due process in criminal law...it would be nice to see Justin spell out what the right due process might look like for resolving this matter
 
Last edited:
see post #6

a multi-pronged (and at times violent) plot to forestall the peaceful transfer of power to a duly elected presidential candidate easily falls within the ambit of rebellion or insurrection against the constitution
 
nsacpi said:
see post #6

a multi-pronged (and at times violent) plot to forestall the peaceful transfer of power to a duly elected presidential candidate easily falls within the ambit of rebellion or insurrection against the constitution
Click to expand...

What was the plan to forestall specifically?
 
If what Trump did was an insurrection then democrats supporting faithless electors in 2016 and every time they used alternate electors in elections they lost are guilty of insurrection too.

The left in this country are becoming unhinged cranks. Unfortunately, it's infecting leftist/RINO judges as well.
 
Last edited:
What about rioting in front of the White House violently? Now insurrection is just relegated to “transfers of power”? Convenient
 
The disqualification clause of the 14th amendment calls for a line to be drawn. Even if it not drawn exactly where any of us want it to be drawn.
 
nsacpi said:
The disqualification clause of the 14th amendment calls for a line to be drawn. Even if it not drawn exactly where any of us want it to be drawn.
Click to expand...

Sure the line is if trump is involved it’s insurrection otherwise not.

We get it.
 
nsacpi said:
The disqualification clause of the 14th amendment calls for a line to be drawn. Even if it not drawn exactly where any of us want it to be drawn.
Click to expand...

If you think that the designers of the 14th would include people who legally challenged elections as insurrectionists then you're wrong.

Insurrectionists to them were Confederates who were actually, you know, insurrectionists.
 
I don't think the disqualification clause has any application to an individual who availed himself of legal avenues for challenging possible election irregularities.

It definitely applies to Confederate rebels.

Between those two situations is a yawning chasm. This is where new precedent is likely to be set in coming months.
 
The disqualification clause was for people who were actually insurrectionists, not people using alternate electors or a president telling people to march peacefully to the capital. In no way was this what the framers of the 14th were intending.
 
Garmel said:
The disqualification clause was for people who were actually insurrectionists, not people using alternate electors or a president telling people to march peacefully to the capital. In no way was this what the framers of the 14th were intending.
Click to expand...

Any sane person knows this which is why their attempts will fail hysterically.
 
Biden is in trouble then. Seems easily chargeable at the least for his handling of Iran or the Afghan pullout
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top