Maine Secretary of State Determines Trump Ineligible for Primary Ballot Under the 14th Amendment
Gotta go through the courts before it becomes official.
Before anyone gets upset or celebrates, let’s digest what really happened.
Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows determined former President Donald Trump cannot appear on the state’s March 5th primary ballot due to the 14th Amendment:
“I conclude… that the record establishes that Mr. Trump, over the course of several months and culminating on January 6, 2021, used a false narrative of election fraud to inflame his supporters and direct them to the Capitol to prevent certification of the 2020 election and the peaceful transfer of power,” Bellows said in a statement. “I likewise conclude that Mr. Trump was aware of the likelihood for violence and at least initially supported its use given he both encouraged it with incendiary rhetoric and took no timely action to stop it.”
HOWEVER! The decision is suspended “until the Superior Court rules on any appeal or the time to appeal has expired, according to a news release from her office.”
Nothing will happen until it goes through the courts even though Maine’s secretary of state has the ability “to adjudicate ballot challenges to candidates’ eligibility.”
I saw Trump people freaking out because he is on the ballot in Colorado despite the Colorado Supreme Court ruling he’s ineligible.
Guess what. Trump never left the ballot because the court immediately put a stay on the decision to give him time to appeal and SCOTUS to make a move.
So that story is a non-story.
The Democrats have not learned from their massive mistake of eliminating the 60 vote threshold to confirm judges.
They really want to open a large door, using the 14th Amendment to take out political opponents who have not been charged or convicted of such activities under the amendment.
Everyone, including Democrats, will be fair game.
It will affect everyone in the future long after Trump is gone. But Orange Man Bad we have to do it now!
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I’m a little fuzzy on all of this. Granted, I’ve been away from news and social media for a bit, but Trump was impeached for Inciting Insurrection – but was aquitted. On what are they basing this supposed ineligibility?
Feels and TDS. That is all. That is all they have.
That’s not a valid question. That he was acquitted by the senate is completely irrelevant; it doesn’t vindicate him, any more than Clinton’s acquittal vindicated him. The senate’s judgment is entirely political; it will never convict any Democrat, no matter how strong the evidence against him, simply because the Dems, who always have at least a third of the senate, will never vote to convict one of theirs.
If you read the post, it says exactly on what the Maine AG based her determination. It’s very thin gruel indeed; all water with just a token sprinkling of flour on top just so it can be classed as food. Having put her cards on the table, we can be reasonably confident the courts will not accept it.
The Colorado court based its decision on the trial court’s finding of fact. That was wrong too, but it’s a little more substantial than this one.
It is completely wrong to claim that the ineligibility clause depends on a conviction at a criminal trial. That’s impossible and illogical. Among other points, that would mean that the standard was “beyond reasonable doubt”, which has no possible basis at all.
Let us suppose 14A (3) is self-executing, and *NOT* dependent on (5) specifying “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” Then what praytell *should* be the determination that a person “…shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion…?” Fifty Secretaries of State? Governors? Random State courts? Random judges in various states? Newspaper editorial boards? Or shall we presume that the Federal Government in the form of the Legislature will then pass ‘appropriate legislation’ defining what an insurrection is and how to determine if somebody is guilty of it by establishing a legal method of proving that criminal offense according to the rule of law? You know, like 18 U.S.C. § 2383
The answer is obvious. Even to lawyers.
Then what praytell *should* be the determination that a person “…shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion…?”
Section 1 of the amendment inveighs against any state violating any person’s right to “due process of law.” The amendment does not exempt itself from this demand, nor does it otherwise conflict with the guarantees made in the Bill or Rights. Therefore, “due process of law”, and a conviction, is still required. But because Trump hasn’t been convicted of insurrection, “Trump as insurrectionist” is a fact not in evidence before any court that might hear a suit to keep him off a ballot. (It is also not a fact that can be considered by any of a State’s other officials. Ironically, Maine’s SoS seems to be violating Trump’s rights under the 14th Amendment!)
The answer is, the 5th section of the amendment notwithstanding, a court, somewhere, must hold a trial to determine that Trump is, in fact, an insurrectionist. But the 5th section does not give any State parallel authority to enforce the amendment (as found, for instance, in the 18th Amendment), removing the issue from the authority of any State entirely.
That is just not true. It does no such thing. First of all, the constitution does not “inveigh”. Ever. That’s not what a constitution does, so any argument that involves that word is automatically invalid. Second, what section 1 says is that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. Neither Colorado nor Maine have deprived Trump of any of those things, so Section 1 has absolutely nothing to say about it.
In Colorado it’s a finding of fact by the trial court. The court was wrong, but you can’t claim there was no such finding when there was.
And the Maine SoS does not need any court to have made a finding of fact; she’s perfectly capable and entitled to make one herself. She acted within her authority; now Trump can challenge her finding in court, where he will surely win, because her grounds are flimsy beyond belief, even setting aside all the other arguments that would apply even if he were an insurrectionist.
In the first instance, whoever is in charge of making up ballots. In some states that’s the secretary of state; in some states it’s the local county election board. In the second instance, whichever court is hearing a challenge to such a decision.
First off, the framers and adopters of the 14th amendment did not contemplate any dispute about keeping someone off a ballot, for the simple reason that ballots as we know them did not exist. There was no such thing as a government-determined ballot, so there was nothing to keep anyone off. So they certainly did not intend Congress to make any laws governing state or county ballots.
Second, 18 U.S.C. § 2383 is not made pursuant to § 5 of the 14th amendment. It doesn’t implement § 3. It doesn’t do any of the things you claim it does. It doesn’t define what an insurrection is, it doesn’t say how to determine if somebody is guilty of it, and it doesn’t even cover all of the offices from which § 3 excludes insurrectionists. Nor does it limit itself to those insurrectionists covered by § 3.
18 U.S.C. § 2383 is like any other criminal law. It creates a crime and defines a penalty for those who commit it. We know how criminal liability is determined — neither this law nor any other criminal law covers that process; there are separate laws that cover that. And the penalty properly only includes things that Congress can actually do, which does not include disqualifying anyone from elected office, or from state office. 14A. § 3 disqualifies certain insurrectionists from Congress; 18 U.S.C. § 2383 does not, because it can’t.
Milhouse what you just said is completely illogical. A Conviction – either by the Senate or via the Criminal court system of the United States of Americ should be THE ONLY valid determination of ineligibility under the 14th Amendment – otherwise legitimate candidates can be kept from running on fabricated charges, leading to the government being completely and totally controlled by a small handful of people who can remove any unwanted competition with a wave of the hand simply for having the audacity to give a speech protesting how a government entity handled something.
Sigh. I just explained why what you are saying is completely illogical. You offer no arguments for your position at all; your only “argument” is consequential. You predict undesirable results from what I’m saying, but even if you were right that’s not an argument. That a correct position would lead to undesirable results is never a valid argument. It’s a classic leftist argument, which you recognize and reject when the left makes it, but you’re doing exactly the same. What’s the difference between your post and a leftist who argues that the second amendment can’t mean what it says, because Uvalde and Sandy Hook?
These attempts to block DJT from the ballot are asinine. Every step down this path continues to divide the Nation. Sooner or later these clowns may end up with more division than they bargained for as they recklessly continue with this folly. I say this as someone who doesn’t hold DJT in any special esteem; this path is as dangerous as it is flawed. SCOTUS is going to have to decide to pull up their big boy/big girl pants and rule decisively to end it before this spins out of control. Hyperbole? Not really, when trust in the process or faith in the system is undermined past a certain point of tolerance then folks get intolerant with the existence of the process and will seek to overturn what they view as an irredeemably corrupted system. Far better to avoid that IMO.
Not hyperbole at all. I don’t like Trump. I didn’t vote for him in 2016 or 2020 and won’t in 2024. What they are doing is dangerous because it opens that door if SCOTUS upholds these choices, especially since the Colorado Supreme Court widened the scope of “engaged in” and “insurrection.”
Why don’t you like him and why wouldn’t you vote for him?? By every objective measure he was a good and effective president for this country. He delivered on what he said against all odds. I’m really sick of people trying to run with the popular kids and declare ooohhh Trumps so yucky I don’t like him either. FYI…despite what the left proclaims who you vote for president doesn’t need need to be your boyfriend or your daddy.
Can’t be “respectable” and deplorable at the same time.
I will vote for a complete scoundrel who is sincerely pro-America before I’d vote for a puritan who doesn’t love his country.
Exactly CoTB! Idiots like this use this kind of moral game to virtue signal to everyone else just how wonderful they are because they couldn’t bring themselves, after much soul searching, to vote for OMB!!
And they did it a second time and won’t do it a third time because you know, a roaring economy, full employment, being respected by your enemies and making your “friends” occasionally pay their way was just too much of an ask for their vote.
So they deserve every inch of Democrat corruption that has been rammed down their throats these last few years like a trans woman with her girlfriend.
Ty Mary for being so candid. Your vote is your business. We may disagree about presidential elections,, but you nailed it re SCOTUS. If 45 becomes 47, I hope he can change your mind by his actions, and his policies. Ya never know. Until then, good people can disagree.
caseoftheblues: I wasn’t the one you asked, but I was not a fan of his in 2016 as I viewed him as a “New York Republican” (similar to John Linsey – i.e. a RINO) and that his love of “the deal” would mean that he would bend over backwards to compromise with the Democrats to get said deals. I personally think that if the Democrats had not gone so crazy with TDS, they could have cozened him into massive gains from him. I did vote for him in 2020. OTOH, I live in Calif so my votes don’t count.
He wasn’t even a “NY Republican”. He was a liberal Democrat until he decided to run for the Republican nomination, just like Michael Bloomberg.
I did the same thing as you. I didn’t vote for him in 2016 because I thought he was likely to act like the Democrat he is at heart; and I agree that had the Dems accepted his overtures to them after he was elected he would have governed like a Dem. They rejected him and drove him into the conservatives’ hands, so he was a good president and I voted for him in 2020. If he is the R candidate in 2024 I will vote for him again — but I hope he is not.
I see this as a problem… If you call yourself a conservative you have to vote for the conservative candidate. You may not like him but he is who the conservatives voted for to run against the liberals. Not voting for him is no different than actually voting for the liberal side. Stupidity like this is why we cant win half of the elections we post a candidate for. A bunch of McCain/McConnell/Romney-ites cant get past their egos to see what grass roots main streets of the country is asking for… And yes Marry bu your own admission this places you right in the GOPe camp.
I will not vote for any candidate, on any ticket, who does not meet with my approval. This does not mean I have to agree with everything the candidate represents, but it does mean that he can’t be (IMOH) overall bad for the country (e.g., Romney, McCain). I am 67 and have voted in every election for which I was qualified to vote, and have never voted for a Democrat, for any office. But there have been times when I withheld my vote from a Republican. Because if I think that R is bad for the country, I will not have a part in electing, and therefore becoming responsible, for him. (I’m likewise not responsible for electing any candidate for whom I do not vote. Only those people who voted for the winner are “responsible” for him.) Some would say I “waste my vote” by not voting. I disagree. I’ve wasted my vote when I disapprove of the person for whom I voted.
“Those who choose the lesser evil forget very quickly that they choose evil.”
Hannah Arendt
This is a cop out because often the “less bad” candidate “ie. not a full on Democrat” will be a lot less damaging than an actual Democrat”.
McCain and Romney, will insufferably stuck up their own arses, would have been no where near as disastrous as Barry turned out to be through his two terms of diversity hire Presidency.
And yes these two suck about as bad as Republicans suck but there is no question the damage Barry did to America would have also been done under these two intellectual pigmies.
“Those who choose the lesser evil forget very quickly that they choose evil.”
Hannah Arendt
That doesn’t apply here. We are not talking about a Damien-esq candidate here.. To justify that statement you have to define evil… Do you mean evil in the name of being completely destructive to the country and what she stands for, or do you mean evil because you have an opinion of not liking someone just because you don’t like a couple things about them.
Realize we are 1074 days into the alternative. We have run away inflation, and 2 conflicts that very well could turn into a world war.
The margin of Xidens win in 3 states was ultimately very small, If GOPe dipshits had gotten their ego’s out of their way and voted in support of their parties candidate we would not be in the position we are in now.
Face it GOPe elitist dipshits are why we have the worse evil imaginable sitting in the oval office right now.
Mailman:
It’s not a “cop out.” A “cop out” is not voting for no good reason. I refuse to be a party to the election of anyone I deem will do net harm to the country. Apparently you will vote for such a candidate. You’re OK with that? Fine. I’m not.
So Mary is in favor of the alternative? She must be smiling about slaughtered Jews, dead Ukrainians, expensive gas, high interest rates and record, since the 1980s, inflation. Remember Mary, if you voted and snubbed Trump for a yet unexplained reason, you are responsible, in part, for the aforementioned
assumes facts not in evidence. talk about hyperbole…
NO it does not, Her comment flat out says she didn’t vote for him. That puts her in the 2,667,079 that voted for someone else or the 81,282,632 that voted for Xiden.
Trump lost by less than 500k votes in the 3 swing states that mattered.
And her state is not one of them. Her state, including every one of its electoral votes, went to Trump in both 2016 and 2020.
Fuzzy, in my eyes that doesn’t matter. Mary did not know her state would go that way, Hell Even Texas is questionable now…. But the point I am making is not about Mary herself. I know she is a wonderful person and I love just about everything she says.. Key point here I said “Just About” I read and agree with just about everything you say as well, Again the key here is Just about…. But just because I do not agree with you or her 100% does not mean I discount your opinions to being worth nothing. You two are both very vibrant and intelligent beings that I respect and listen to religiously DESPITE my disagreements with you.
Again my point is not about Mary, its about the Bush/McCain/McConnell/Romney-ites that sat out this election just because their ego’s got bruised. And I guarantee there were quite a few in the states that did matter.
-Starride-
Her state is, as frequent LI readers know, Oklahoma. In what universe was Oklahoma ever NOT going to go for Trump? Seriously, that’s just not realistic. I have no idea what Mary would do if her state were in any danger of voting for Hillary or Biden, but I know what I did. In 2016, Florida looked iffy, so I held my nose and voted for Trump (really AGAINST Hillary) because I thought that it was important given the polling and reports that suggested Hillary actually had a chance here (where we are winner take all and 30 electoral votes, vs OK’s 7). I came back from voting that day and “confessed” my choice here at LI. I was not happy about it, and I only became happy about it when Trump went on to champion good policies and make solid changes for the country (most of which, of course, have been undone now by Biden). At any rate, yes, it does matter that there was no chance in hell her state was going to go to Biden.
There is no chance that my state will go to Biden this cycle, and I am absolutely not, NOT NOT NOT, voting for Trump. I can’t stand him, and I can’t stand his supporters more. I won’t vote for him, but it won’t matter because Florida will go to Trump no matter what I do or don’t do. You get that we actually understand how things work, right?
As to the rest, thank you for your kind words about both me and Mary. I appreciate it.
Fuzzy:
“There is no chance that my state will go to Biden this cycle, and I am absolutely not, NOT NOT NOT, voting for Trump. I can’t stand him, and I can’t stand his supporters more.”
I am a trump supporter and a lot of people on this sight are as well. You just stated that you cant stand us as a group with no conscious thought of what you just said.
That statement puts you in the category of being an elitist and thinking you are better than us. You have never heard me say that I cant stand DeSantis supporters. You have never heard me say anything negative about a DeSantis supporter. In fact you and i have had disagreements about DeSantis and you have never heard me say anything negative about you.
In your eyes with a blanket statement, where does that put you in relation to Hillary? Am I a double deplorable to you?
Respect goes both ways you should think about what you just said if you want people here to truly respect you.
Starride, you wrote: “I am a trump supporter and a lot of people on this sight are as well. You just stated that you cant stand us as a group with no conscious thought of what you just said.”
And you are absolutely correct! I am so sorry I said that in that way. I had been reading a bunch of stuff on X by Trump supporters who are not at all like our readers here; the vile Laura Loomer type and was a bit bent out of shape. I should never have made such a blanket statement about “Trump supporters,” since I not only don’t feel that way about you but have been one myself! There are tons of people who support Trump that I very much like, I even love some of them! I’m sorry for stating that. It was wrong of me.
Fuzzy:
As for the rest of your statement it doesn’t matter where she lives (Hint I used to live in Tulsa and hope to retire there)
Dems keep wining because they stick together, there are very few that will buck the crowd.. Conservatives on the other hand are a bunch of people tend to do their own thing…. I think that’s great but for elections its a loosing hand every time…. It take teamwork to defeat an organized opposition and that is something conservatives just don’t do well.
The vast majority of Trump supporters, including here at this site, have stated–unequivocally and often–that they will not vote for anyone except Trump. Only Trump. No one else. I can’t recall you responding to them in this way. Maybe I missed it.
Of course it matters where she lives. There is no way that an Oklahoman’s presidential vote will ever affect the result. If Oklahoma is ever in the balance then it won’t matter who carries the state, the Democrat will already have won in a landslide anyway. Likewise New York; if it’s ever in the balance then the Republican has already won in a landslide so it won’t matter how NY comes out. Residents of such states can afford to vote how they really feel, and need not pay any attention to questions of strategy or tactics.
Thanks for helping ‘elect’ Joe Biden. You’re the type the right needs–eager to do the bidding of the left all unwitting-like and declare that you’re NOT a rino even thought your actions always seem to lead to successes for the left.
Understand, it’s okay to not vote for the nominee in the primary, but saying that you didn’t vote for the nominee in the election, well, THAT’S a different story. That’s when you move to TDS territory.
Or worse.
Anyone who claims that Jan 6th was an insurrection is an idiot and is trying to commit an actual insurrection by abusing the law to wrest total control of America and no longer be bothered that pesky Constitution or anything. Those who cite Jan 6th as an insurrection are, themselves, insurrectionists who should be removed from power.
Also, anyone who participated in, gave aid and comfort to, or supported the true insurrectionist riots and arson and looting and destruction of all American symbols in the summer of 2020 are, likewise, guilty of waging war on America and need to be held to account.
The fact is that this country is broken. It cannot be repaired. We have a large percentage of citizens who hate the very idea of America. The only solution is a national divorce, so that we may be rid of these dirtbags. Let they have their own reservations and land to destroy, by themselves, and let them be taught what the real purpose and function of national borders are when they try to escape their self-made sh*tholes to invade the free land around them.
I beg to differ
What are you 12? But but but your an insurrectionist.
A court has heard evidence and found it to be the case that it was an insurrection. Your feelings don’t really matter.
As for the constitution, well Trump is anti constitution so your comment makes zero sense. This is the man who wants to be dictator and be absolutely immune to all criminal proceedings.
Your position is absurd
Insurrection? The most well-armed segment of society planned to topple the government but left their guns at home? If you say that out loud, does it sound reasonable?
How can the government be toppled by some people trespassing in a federal building, delaying a bureaucratic ceremony for a few hours? What’s the next step after that?
The next step after that is really going hard! Using wrong pronouns and misgendering people.
Maybe you should go back to 7th grade and learn what an insurrection is before making a comment like this and showing your ignorance.
“Your position is absurd”
The fact that you can end your asinine post with this bit of hypocrisy shows you have no ability to read and comprehend what you post.
One court, and it barely heard evidence, and certainly didn’t give any consideration to most of the available evidence. That “finding of fact” was gratuitous and a throwaway line, since her verdict was to keep Trump on the ballot anyway. So yes, there is a judicial finding of fact, but outside Colorado that is of no consequence. Certainly no reasonable person could be persuaded by it.
I won’t dispute that, as evidenced, for instance, by his impetuous decision that he would ban bump stocks first and consider the constitution later. But he’s no more so than even the least anti-constitution Democrat, and he’s less so than the average Democrat.
No, he doesn’t. I’m sure he’d love to be a dictator if the nation were to crown him as one, but he knows that’s not going to happen and has given no indication he would do anything to make it happen. And he has never suggested he should be absolutely immune to all criminal proceedings. For instance he never challenged the NY case against him on grounds of presidential immunity, because that would be obviously ridiculous. He does argue he has absolute immunity for his official acts as president; guess what, Jack Smith agrees, as does everyone involved. The only dispute is over the scope of “official acts”. He is arguing for a broad interpretation, Smith is arguing for a narrow one. That is all.
If the purpose of a body of people is the restoration of constitutional principles, the preservation of the Republic, and support for a government that respects the law, then that body is not involved in an insurrection and nothing it does is seditious. In this country, sedition and insurrection are not acts against an individual, those in power, or a particular political party. They are acts against lawful governments and in opposition to rule by the Constitution.
Exactly. Neither the Capitol Riot nor the various Dem legal actions against Trump are insurrections. The Portland courthouse riots, the Seattle CHAZ, the Minneapolis riots, the Occupy movement during the 0bama years, those were insurrections. Tom Cotton was right that Trump should have invoked the Insurrection Act and put troops on the streets in Portland and other cities.
Curious how Ms. Bellows bank account now looks. Another asinine demented democrat operative bum.
I told you.
10-15 more are going to follow suit.
They have absolutely zero intention of allowing an actual fair election in 2024. They know exactly how horrible Biden’s approval and actual numbers are.
Virtue signal by a petty tyrant playing prosecutor, judge and fantasy executioner.
And people wonder why this country is so screwed up.
It’s something else Trump must take time and money to deal with.
It’s something else that the press can now ask him about and discuss on tv.
It’s something else that Biden and dem talking heads can talk about
Bottom line: Lawfare. It’s just more lawfare. (And who knows, perhaps we can anticipate they’ll do this in 5-10 other states , rinse repeat rinse repeat
Is this the last straw? The ballot thing? Hope so.
There are a lot lessons to be learned from the behavior of the left the last several years, particularly as that behavior becomes increasingly radicalized and untethered to traditional political norms. But, I think one of the most important lessons to learn – the one that is potentially the most dangerous – is that if Donald Trump does not win next fall, he will almost certainly die in prison. There is NO WAY he’s going to receive anything resembling a fair trial in NY, DC or Atlanta. There are no pardons coming his way after he’s convicted…and he will surely be convicted by jury pools that voted overwhelmingly against him.
Then what? Dark days ahead. Clearly, this is the most perilous time for the Republic since the middle of the 19th century. The progressive left may do what the Crown, the Nazis and the Communists all failed to do: Destroy America.
Well, if the SCOTUS does its job and actually says the right thing, that the President has absolute immunity, then these issues go away tomorrow.
Unfortunately that “if” is a huge great big f88k off “IF” spelt with massive f88k off capital letters.
Roberts disdain for Trump has been obvious since he swore him in in ’17. His facial expression and body language was that of one forced to be next to someone with leprosy, Roberts has also, in direct contradiction of Marbury v Madison, interfered with Trump’s ability to perform his Article 2 duties with ridiculous rulings on his so-called “Muslim Ban”, the citizenship question on the census form and has determined that Trump has no authority to rescind an executive order of a previous president, yet stood idly by as Biden undid Trump’s EOs.
You’re full of shit. Every assertion you just made is not true.
I wouldn’t call it “immunity.” I’d call the amendment “inapplicable” (even if Trump were to be convicted of insurrection).
Section 3 describes certain persons who rebelled in the recent (at the time the amendment was written) secession of States from the Union. Why is the president not mentioned explicitly? Because no former president was an insurrectionist. The section purposefully omits US presidents from the description of those subject to the section’s sanctions, because their inclusion was unnecessary to the purpose of the section. “Officer” refers to a plethora of employees, agents, and actual officers (i.e., military officers) that are too numerous to identify with specificity. The president (and vice-president) are not too numerous to identify with specificity, yet are not identified here as among these “officers.” The historical context within which the amendment was crafted and the purpose that it was meant to serve both inform us why presidents weren’t mentioned and aren’t included in the description of persons subject to the section – there were no presidents that could have been subject to section 3 of the amendment.
Note that I’m not saying the amendment is a dead-letter today. I believe that even though it was meant to address a very specific situation, there’s nothing in the language that would prevent its enforcement today. But its enforcement must be limited now to none other than those persons and officials it applied to at the time of its ratification.
Dave,
When I talk of immunity I’m talking in the greatest possible meaning of the word in that Presidents, regardless of the letter after their name, must be held immune to every act carried out as President so as to enable them to carry out their job to their fullest abilities free of fear of reprisal when the other party takes over.
And yes, that means Biden will get a pass for his abandonment of Americas southern border. The remedy for that recklessness must either be impeachment by congress and removal by the Senate OR being voted out of office (at which point that is the end of the story).
To do otherwise opens a whole other world of surprises and unintended consequences to slither out of Pandoras coooochie!
I understand that. But I don’t believe a president is immune from prosecution for actual crimes committed while in office.
IF it is at all possible for a president to be a party to “insurrection,” I believe he can be held accountable after he leaves office (including, but not limited to, removal from office via impeachment). But even if this were to occur (i.e., Trump is convicted of “insurrection”), disbarment from office would still not apply to him via the 14th Amendment (although it may apply directly via the statutory punishments declared by the defining legislation).
The inapplicable nature of the amendment would hold with respect to Trump (or any other president or former president), even if it were possible to convict him of insurrection. (Which I can’t discount, because “insurrection” is a positive act – not authorized by the Constitution. Any office holder who “insurrects” is not doing so within his authority, and is therefore acting as a private person, becoming subject to prosecution. Office-holding is not a carte blanche to commit crimes because no office-holder’s authority includes the conduct of criminal acts.)
“Inapplicability” would bar invocation of the amendment even if the immunity argument fails to hold.
Dave, that explains why the presidential oath is excluded from the list of oaths whose breaking make someone subject to the section. It doesn’t explain why the people who are covered are not excluded from the presidency. The obvious reason for that is that the president is chosen by electors chosen by the whole of the people, and in the unlikely event that those electors decided to elect Alexander Stephens president there was no reason to stop them. The section’s purpose was to stop Georgia’s electors from electing Stephens to the senate, against the wishes of the rest of the people. But if the majority of Americans wanted him as president, they were entitled to have him.
The level of lawfare and this just proves that they have been doing election fraud for years. Probably since 1960
Lincoln said that our demise can only come from within.
Not one of these wack 14th amendment decisions mention Section 5.
“The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
Congress did as directed and enacted 18 USC §2383 which neither Trump nor anyone else involved with January 6 has ever been charged with.
Taken together these facts establish that neither Colorado nor Maine ever had original subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate these petitons. Section 5 vests exclusive jurisdiction in the federal judiciary where none of these claims have been filed.
That is wrong.
First of all, 18 USC 2383 does not implement that constitutional clause. It’s a separate statute. It does include a disqualification from holding office under the united states, but that too is separate from the disqualification in the 14th amendment; its scope is narrower, since it only covers appointed federal offices, and on the other hand it survives the amnesty of 1872. (It can only cover appointed federal offices; Congress has no power to disqualify anyone from elected office, or from state office.)
Second, the disqualification doesn’t need any legislation to enforce it, so section 5 doesn’t apply to it. The text says certain persons shall not be any of the listed things. That language is clearly self-implementing; making someone one of the listed things automatically violates the constitution itself, which says they shall not be those things.
Third, section 5 does not vest jurisdiction in the federal judiciary for anything. It just authorizes Congress to make certain laws that it was not previously authorized to make, back before Wickard when the enumerated powers doctrine was taken seriously. The states have plenary jurisdiction over presidential ballots, because those are state elections, which are held only because the state legislature has decided that the state’s electors should be chosen by all the state’s voters at a general election. Tomorrow morning the Maine legislature could decide not to have a presidential election at all in that state, and to choose its electors in some other manner. Or it could abolish official ballots and go back to how it was before the 1870s, when voters would either bring a private ballot distributed by a political party, or just make their own. The federal courts can rule on Trump’s eligibility, not on how a state’s ballots must be printed, if at all.
No, it isn’t.
“First of all, 18 USC 2383 does not implement that constitutional clause. It’s a separate statute. ”
Wrong and wrong.
It’s a fact whether you like it or not. I explained why it must be so, and you have offered no argument against it at all, nor any argument supporting your assertion. You are completely wrong.
If you throw away Section 5 for 14A(3) then you have no way to define if (3) applies other than hand-waving. If you apply Section 5 as written, you have a clear-cut Federal definition with no waffling or hand-waving. I expect a 9-0 or at lest 7-2 decision on this at SCOTUS.
Also consider that when an amendment affects state authority or processes it does so explicitly. If an amendment (such as the 18th) is intended to grant authority to the federal government and to the States, it says so. There is no such grant of jurisdiction to the States over the effects of a conviction (required by due process of law and the presumption of innocence) for insurrection.
“It results from the examination that persons in office by lawful appointment or election before the promulgation of the fourteenth amendment, are not removed therefrom by the direct and immediate effect of the prohibition to hold office contained in the third section; but that legislation by congress is necessary to give effect to the prohibition, by providing for such removal.” In re Griffin (C.C.D. Va. 1869) 11 F.Cas. 7, 26
After a horrendous war, the 14th was passed to deal with THAT war and its consequences. Was Congress and the States anticipating ANOTHER civil war? I doubt it. Many of the post Civil War laws have been dusted off and used now. Jim Crow V2.0 is ongoing though with a political tint rather than skin.
Bob, I considered this (above). But even if the amendment could be applied today (and I believe it can be), it must be applied as it would/could have been applied immediately upon its ratification. The amendment doesn’t include presidents or ex-presidents because at the time there were no such persons who could have been barred from office under the amendment. Inclusion of presidents/ex-presidents within the scope of the amendment was, for the immediate purpose of the amendment, not necessary. Therefore the amendment can’t be applied to presidents or ex-presidents now.
Griffin’s case seems to stand for the idea that those who were already in office when the 14th amendment was ratified were not automatically excluded from their offices, but would be only pursuant to legislation. The arguments for this don’t necessarily apply to those elected later.
There are many other reasons why Trump is not disqualified.
Section 5 actually enforces the conclusion the amendment requires respect for due process rights. It could have been used to declare the amendment’s “self-execution,” but instead it authorizes Congress to make legislation to enforce it. This section (as written) would be superfluous if the amendment were intended to “self-execute.”
“Self-execution” would require either an explicit exemption from due process requirements previously guaranteed elsewhere, or language impossible to interpret without conflicting with the guarantee of due process rights. Neither of these conditions are met in the amendment.
Additionally, when an amendment is made to the Constitution, if it affects the authority or processes of any State, it explicitly mentions that fact. (See section 1 of the amendment itself, clearly directed to the States, as well as the 18th Amendment, which explicitly gives the States parallel authority to enforce alcohol prohibition laws – authority they also explicitly retained when the amendment was repealed.) Because the 14th Amendment gives the States no parallel authority to enforce the provisions of the 14th Amendment, all claims under it belong exclusively to the federal courts and enforcement of section 3 is dependent upon prosecution under the laws promulgated under section 5 (because due process rights remain intact).
We are at a decision point where it will be determined if we are under the rule of law and the Constitution. We are down to how SCOTUS will rule, when it is known that SCOTUS will do almost anything to the country to avoid offending the Left. This will determine the legitimacy of our system of government.
Subotai Bahadur
Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows will be a huge hit at this week’s ME commie NYE party.
Too bad this decision didn’t occur before Christmas, so the party celebrants might possibly be visited—in a purely Dickensian fashion, of course—by the Ghost of Triangle Shirtwaist Past.
Parties should hold their own primaries instead of letting the state do it. It’s none of the judges concern what the party does internally
The way to get SCOTUS to understand the importance of the situation is to have some Red states remove Biden from the ballot and if Repubs had any balls they would up the ante and declare, or have a state supreme court, declare Biden guilty of treason and demand his extradition for execution
Let’s recall the varied and inconsistent maneuvers that Barry’s army of attorneys employed in squelching the more clear cut requirement of natural born. Nobody was gonna look at no birth certificate- no way.
I recall seeing an announcement of Obama’s birth in the local Hawaii newspaper. Consequently, I don’t believe he was born overseas despite the weirdness of the whole birth certificate controversy. I think it more likely that he committed fraud in his applications to college and publishers to present himself as exotic and thus more desirable to that audience.
Where to begin? Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery.
The birth announcement was published in the paper. That is not proof of birth in Hawaii. No, publishing a phony announcement does not mean that a conspiracy to put baby Obama in the Whitehouse began at his birth. His maternal grandfather had careerist reasons for concealing Obama’s true paternity. Obama was born in Washington state. He was not born overseas. He was eligible to run, but would not have been elected had communist agitator, Frank Marshall Davis, been revealed as his true father. It was career death for the CIA station chief in Hawaii, his grandfather, if it became know that his troubled, wayward and rebellious teenage daughter had a baby by a man granddaddy was tasked with surveilling If this is all too fantastic, then do a deep dive into the Obama instigated, televised charade he cooked up to present his birth certificate. It is a clumsy forgery.
“It is a clumsy forgery.”
I downloaded a copy of the originally-posted birth certificate. It was a PDF file. I opened it in Adobe Illustrator. It had multiple layers and elements. A scan of a document contains only two parts – the base, or virtual paper, and an image (the scan). When extracting an image from a scanned document, the extraction produces a single image (the scan), not multiple elements as could be extracted from the “birth certificate.” Even if Obama was actually born in Hawaii, the birth certificate was a forgery, made by some spook who didn’t know enough to flatten the document before saving it to PDF and subsequently distributing it.
Wherever 0bama was born, he was 100% American from mother and sperm donor Frank Marshall Davis. ` Is there a clean up squad that prevents BH0 and Big Mike’s DNA from being collected? My biggest issue with Early BHO is whether he reneged on his citizenship … the Occidental records would show his declaration for admission. He is the living embodiment of the Manchurian Candidate.
It’s time for red states to toss Biden and Harris off the ballot for their material support for BLM and Klantifa or inviting an invasion at the southern border. Yeah, the case may be weak as shit, but so is the case with Trump and the 14A. The GOP sitting back and doing nothing about or actively abetting (looking at you, GOPe) the destruction of political norms is how we arrived here.
Juris Doctor: Griffin (C.C.D. Va. 1869) 11 F.Cas. 7, 26
That’s not an established precedent. Chase found that Section 3 was not self-executing, seemingly contrary to the “shall” language of Section 3. Chase’s primary concern was sitting officials, whose previous decisions could be called into question. The finding was appealed, but the Supreme Court didn’t get a chance to rule before President Johnson granted a general pardon.
MarkS: Roberts has also, in direct contradiction of Marbury v Madison, interfered with Trump’s ability to perform his Article 2 duties with ridiculous rulings on his so-called “Muslim Ban”
Roberts wrote the majority opinion upholding the so-called “Muslim ban.”
Milhouse: The states have plenary jurisdiction over presidential ballots, because those are state elections, which are held only because the state legislature has decided that the state’s electors should be chosen by all the state’s voters at a general election.
As usual, your comments are well-thought. And your points are all correct. The problem is the difficulty with having differing standards in different states in a modern democracy. It would be best, of course, if the Congress acted, but they are dysfunctional, barely able to elect a Speaker.
To avoid the expected chaos, the Supreme Court will almost certainly struggle and squint in their “originalism” and “historicity” to find some way to overturn the bans on Trump. The Supreme Court “isn’t final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final {Justice Robert Jackson}.”
MarkS: The way to get SCOTUS to understand the importance of the situation is to have some Red states remove Biden from the ballot and if Repubs had any balls they would up the ante and declare, or have a state supreme court, declare Biden guilty of treason and demand his extradition for execution
To remove Biden under Section 3, the courts would have to agree that he engaged in insurrection. One doesn’t “declare” someone guilty of treason. It requires a probable cause indictment, then conviction by jury in a court before a judge, with appeals on matters of law.
E Howard Hunt: Let’s recall the varied and inconsistent maneuvers that Barry’s army of attorneys employed in squelching the more clear cut requirement of natural born.
Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, so is a natural born citizen.
E Howard Hunt does not claim Obama was not a citizen, he claims merely that his citizenship was through the person of his father, a card-carrying communist. The birth certificate was counterfeit (see my comment concerning its authenticity above – the spook who created it also used the term “African American” to describe Barry’s father’s race – a term 1.) not in use at the time; not a term used by medical people at the time – a Kenyan would have been referred to as a “Negro” because “African” is not a race; and 2.) not an accurate description of Barry’s alleged, Kenyan, father), just not for an obvious purpose (i.e., to falsely claim citizenship).
The purpose of the fraudulent “born in Hawaii” claim was to enable Obama to claim his (actual) citizenship status while concealing his actual parentage (which would have made him unelectable). (And even if Obama was born in Hawaii, this doesn’t discount the possibility that his actual father was Frank Marshal Davis.)
Chinese bot say what?
“To remove Biden under Section 3, the courts would have to agree that he engaged in insurrection. One doesn’t “declare” someone guilty of treason. It requires a probable cause indictment, then conviction by jury in a court before a judge, with appeals on matters of law.”
If only that was the standard they were using for Trump.
We appreciate any civil dialogue on the topic. However, our comments are always being caught in moderation. We apologize if our comments are delayed or never appear.
“The fundamental right of any American citizen to vote freely, fairly and to have their vote counted is the premise of our democracy. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not values to be compromised away.”
-Shenna Bellows
“Office holders” know that half the citizenry has very short memories or simply don’t pay attention to these things…she said this, then proceeded to violate her own comment. Heck, maybe she forgot herself as pandering does that to a person, can’t keep the statements and lies straight.
Northern Maine is very conservative. I was listening to one of our local morning talk radio shows earlier, and they had a call in and give your opinion segment. People here are absolutely livid that the leftists in Augusta are trying to do this. This BS is an actual attempt at election interference, and cannot be allowed to stand.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/12/state-rep-john-andrews-moves-impeach-maine-secretary/
What else can you expect from the state of North Massachusetts.
Bazinga!