Rep. Raskin in February: It’s Up to Congress to Disqualify Trump if He Wins
“…so it’s going to be up to us on January 6, 2025, to tell the rampaging Trump mobs that he’s disqualified.”
In February, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) told a group at the Politics and Prose bookstore in D.C. that if former President Donald Trump wins, Congress must disqualify him on January 6, 2025.
The comment happened before SCOTUS ruled on Trump’s eligibility for the ballot due to his supposed participation in an “insurrection.” Raskin knew the court wouldn’t disqualify Trump.
Raskin insisted that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment should keep Trump off the ballot. Section 3 was meant to prevent Confederates from holding federal office after the Civil War.
SCOTUS reinstated Trump to the Colorado ballot in March in a unanimous decision.
I included the whole video at the bottom of the post. The conversation about January 6, 2025, starts at 58:39.
Here’s the important part:
And the greatest example going on right now before our very eyes is Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which they’re just disappearing with a magic wand, as if it doesn’t exist, even though it could not be clearer what it’s stating. And so they want to kick it to Congress, so it’s going to be up to us on January 6, 2025, to tell the rampaging Trump mobs that he’s disqualified. And then we need bodyguards for everybody, and civil war conditions, all because the nine justices — not all of them, but these justices who have not many cases to look at every year, not that much work to do, a huge staff, great protection — simply do not want to do their job and interpret what the great Fourteenth Amendment means.
Holy sh*t
Congressman Jamie Raskin says EVEN IF TRUMP WINS they will disqualify him on January 6th, 2025 under 14A. pic.twitter.com/EJ78RQUhkr
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) August 5, 2024
SCOTUS wrote in its decision: “Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse.”
Raskin’s rant included attacks on SCOTUS, claiming the court has been in conservative mode since the Civil War. He even dropped the idea of amending the Constitution to get anything done.
Well, you know, sir, that is possible. It’s tough (on purpose), but it can be done.
Here’s the rest of his rant, which makes no sense at all:
What I would say is, you know, we’ve got to play defense and offense in 2024. The right to vote is under attack in very specific ways in lots of states, especially in some of the Deep South states, especially in Florida, which I just returned from. There’s just unbelievable stuff going on there — like, if you have to send a mail-in ballot or absentee ballot, you have to have a — you can only have it taken to the mailbox or the polls by a member of your nuclear family who lives with you. OK? So there’s just a million traps for the unwary that are being set across the country. But at the same time, we do have to get on offense for the articulation of a constitutional right to vote that’s meaningful for everybody in the country. The million of people who are left out, and disenfranchised, and for everybody whose right to vote is rendered vulnerable by this Supreme Court. And you know, I like very much the point that both Sherlyn [Ifill] and Rick have been making about the Supreme Court. I mean, we’ve got to remember that for the vast majority of American history, the Supreme Court has not been a friend to the people. It has been overwhelmingly in a reactionary or conservative mode, I mean, all the way up until the Civil War. What did the Supreme Court ever do for enslaved people in our country? Absolutely nothing, other than cement their status in the Dred Scott decision, saying that African-Americans had no rights that the white man was bound to respect. And then even after the Civil War, even after the Reconstruction amendments, in 1896 in Plessy v. Ferguson, constitutionalizing Jim Crow. And then it’s not until the Warren Court for a couple of decades, with the white primary cases, and Brown v. Board, where you get a different kind of Supreme Court on the side of the freedoms and equality of the American people. But the court is not going to save us. And so that means the only thing that really works is people in motion amending the Constitution — but again, it’s necessary, but it’s not sufficient, because what can be put in the Constitution can slip away from you very quickly.
You know, if you don’t like the Constitution, then don’t take a job that requires you to uphold the beloved document.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
It is truly amazing the number of crackpot Democrat lawyers are in office.
I wonder if Raskin got into college the same way as Biden.
Raskin and wife are high value targets on Ivan Raiklin’s deep state target list
I’ve seen a lot of satire sites proclaim jo blow’s arrest and the look on his face yadadadadada
Ivan works with general Flynn and Paxton. He has had several meetings with Paxton
Raklin is going down before this , wife too
He’s waiting for the twitter file release #MOATF
This nut has a God complex.
Raskin seems upset about the loss of the multi decade d/prog stranglehold on the philosophies of SCOTUS. Ultra ironic he uses the term reactionary when today, as in the pre Civil war era he criticized, the d/prog are once again the reactionaries against changing the status quo.
All that Trump wanted was a delay to be sure the 2020 was not stolen. Now Raskin is demanding an abrogation of the vote should Trump win.
Sounds kinda “insurrectiony.”
This is a good video to put context to his familiar linguistic catch phrase that we keep hearing from Democrats, “Our Democracy.”
https://x.com/AmericanDevout/status/1820574910550536340
he is trying to rile up the troops for more of their street violence
Between Schiff, Raskin and Lindsey “Let’s nuke Russia” Graham I am left to wonder dies any politician have a lick of sense.
Probably the only one is the junior senator from Pennsylvania as he continues his recovery.
Slow sense is better than no sense.
I applaud Senator Fetterman’s staunch pro-Israel/anti-Islamofascist stance, but, I observe that he still doesn’t possess sufficient sense to leave the Dhimmi-crat Party, entirely. Which is what any politician of supreme integrity would ultimately decide to do.
At times I’m an optimist. Give him time.
Well there is Massie, Paul and a few others.
No greater sign they are completely resigned to a Trump victory, and now they’re just coping and deflecting it away.
Don’t think that they will give up when Trump is elected. They will riot, loot, assault, rape burn & more.
There will need to be an extreme response to turn this around.
“Resistance” 2.0 — the vile Dhimmi-crats’ predictable sequel to 2016’s agitprop, antics and insurrection.
But this time they can plan for it, because they know the sort of person (and his supporters) they’re dealing with. It will be ugly.
It is likely they will need to be put down like rabid dogs in the street.
Yep. You don’t get Flack, unless you’re over the Target!
Considering the wringing of hands, unless there’s another November Surprise of delayed counting/Ballot Box Stuffing, the Democrats and Deep State believe they are potentially looking at their power and many of their gains being erased: It’s the John Galt scenario.
In my 63-1/2 years, the only Constiitutional Amendment I remember seeing was ERA or the Equal Rights Amendment. Not exactly sure, but the length of the Ratification period was (5 rears?) just a little longer of the presidential term. If Trump wins with “coat tails” in the House and Senate., his term will be over and he will have been successful.
Does the dem leadership want the mobs so they can impose martial law? Do they really think Americans are going to tolerate that? Are they seeking an excuse to use Joe Biden’s nuclear weapons and F-15s and kill masses of Americans? Do they hate Americans that much? It certainly appears that they do.
What bothers me most is not what is or isn’t the impetus for their actions but rather that we have to question their motives.
We already know their motives and intentions.
Only Republicans are seen as true enemies. They agree with the rest of our enemies that the US must be destroyed. The only quibble they have is they wish to maintain wealth and power in the broken shell that will still be called the US. .
It has been obvious all along that Congress will disqualify Trump, should he win with a fully Democratic Congress. And this scenario is very possible, as Congresscritters are running far ahead of Kamala Harris.
Sounds like he’s declared war on the voter. This is the very definition of insurrection.
I don;t think he will like what he is asking for.
No, it isn’t. It is up to Congress to enforce 14A.3, and it’s up to the voter to elect the Congress. Congress reflects the voters’ will every bit as much as the president does. So we have to make sure a Republican Congress is sworn in on Jan 3.
But he’s also right, Milhouse. They have declared war on the voter who might be on the other side. No matter if that section of the populace is 50%-1 or 75% or even 85%. They have an utopia to achieve and they are reaching the point of rolling the tanks over the tops of those who don’t want to participate.
Raskin is ignoring the amendment’s fifth section:
“The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
The amendment does not give Congress the authority to declare anyone’s disqualification from the presidency. Section 3 declares who is prohibited from the office (the list does not include former presidents) and then in section 5 authorizes Congress to enact enforcing legislation. In fact, the only direct action section 3 grants to Congress is the authority to remove the disability established by the section, a disability which requires conviction under the laws authorized by section 5.
Google’s AI summarized section 5: “A conviction under this law, which is codified in 18 U.S. Code § 2383, can disqualify someone from federal office.”
Meaning that Trump would have to be first convicted of insurrection before he can be blocked from taking office. Congress has no authority to find anyone guilty of anything under the 14th Amendment.
For more sh*ts and giggles, see section 3 of the 20th Amendment. Raskin is very unlikely to get what he wants (the appointment of a Democrat to the presidency).
Google’s AI is wrong. 18 USC § 2383 is not a codification of 14A § 3. It creates a crime and prescribes the penalties for it, one of which is disqualification from appointed federal office. It’s both broader and narrower than 14A § 3. It’s broader because it does not depend on previously having held office or sworn an oath, It’s narrower because it doesn’t disqualify someone from state office, or from elected federal office (since Congress can’t do those things).
And while you’re correct that it says “by legislation”, the question remains whether electors’ votes for a disqualified candidate should be counted. And according to the Electoral Count Act (which may or may not be constitutional), that is up to Congress to decide on Jan 6. Congress could take the view that this is its proper role, and the courts may very well invoke the political questions doctrine and stay out of it.
It’s MontCo – Jakob.
To bad it’s not gonna happen. Ratskin seems to be taking a lot for granted.
1: That the dems win the house. (Doesn’t seem likely).
2: That the Dems keep the Senate. (More likely).
3: That they can get enough votes to impeach Trump. (Maybe, but once again they have to take the house).
4: That the Senate will get enough votes to remove him from office. (Not gonna happen).
They won’t need to impeach him. If they control both houses, they can challenge his electors for some state on Jan 6, saying that their votes were not regularly given, since they were for an ineligible candidate. That question would then be resolved by a majority vote in each house; if both houses decide to sustain the objection, the objected-to votes will not be counted, and they’ll move on to the next state and do the same.
Trump would then go to court claiming that Congress had misinterpreted the section (which would be true), but Harris would claim that the court should stay out of it because it’s a political question. I don’t know how the court would rule on that.
I think the court would say that this is not a political question, it’s a question of constitutional interpretation, which is its job, not Congress’s, and that 14A.3 is indeed for Congress to enforce, but by legislation well in advance of the election, not by a last-minute retroactive decision that a state’s choice was invalid.
Or it could say that the Electoral Count Act is unconstitutional, as John Eastman argues. (I think Eastman is probably right that it’s unconstitutional, but wrong about that leaving the vice president in charge.)
If they disqualify Trump’s 270-plus electors, the decision on who becomes president goes to the House of Representatives, where the Constitution gives each state delegation only one vote.
While Democrats winning a majority of seats is a plausible outcome, winning them in such a way as to have more D-led delegations than R-led, is much less likely.
Raskin would be forced to watch “disqualified” Trump elected regardless, and I’d want to be there for that.
Nope. At least, not if the Electoral Count Act is valid. If Trump gets 300 electors and they’re all disqualified then only 238 electors remain, and a majority is 120. Harris wins 238-0.
Obviously if that were to happen, Trump would go immediately to court, but the outcome would be uncertain. A Republican majority in either house would be enough to avoid that mess. Both houses would of course be better.
The Electoral Count Act, as I recall, is done by state, not by number of members of Congress. So even if California does have >50 Representatives, it only has one vote for that purpose in the Electoral Count Act proceedings, as Texas would have only one vote. So Raskin’s dilution wouldn’t necessarily work the way he is planning.
No. Each house retires and discusses the challenge separately, and votes on it by the normal rules. If a majority of each house accepts the challenge it succeeds, otherwise it fails.
If so, this is a possibility. If the Dems can’t cheat their way to a Presidential victory with the idiots they’re running, and they manage to get a single-seat majority in the House and Senate, their *only* chance to get Trump out is to see he isn’t seated. Doesn’t matter if it’s contrary to every law and constitutional rule in effect. One vote Republican majority in each house and a Trump win gives us relative sanity. (Hey! I said relative.) Anything less gives us four years of absolute chaos.
There are 20 D Senators trying to keep their jobs in this upcoming election (not including Rino Romney). Don’t you think we can win the Senate back?
That is not a precedent that he wants to set.
well since we may be looking at 1980 again…. what will the court look like after 12 years of a conservative* POTUS?
*assuming a Mitt Romney clone does not succeed Trump.
Has the clone of Clarence Thomas reached an age to be appointed, yet?
Twelve years of relative conservative SC justices gives us a rule of law with rulings that generally correspond with the Constitution and laws passed by the Legislature. Twelve years of Dem rule and SC appointments gives us a horrid mess. Just look at the Biden/Obama judges appointed to lower positions, drooling over the chance to replace a SC justice. No, don’t look. That’s a horrifying sight. They’re doing enough damage to the rule of law as is.
He believes in democracy, after all, and ignoring it.
Democrats remind me of the comment the mother of a childhood friend made about the roadtrip to Florida they took in 1977. She said the aroma from the backseat wasn’t so bad compared to the burning of her eyes.
I really don’t think that quoting some unknown Congressman’s comment from 6 months ago is going to be a factor in the election. Trump and his campaign have to do a lot better than this.
“Trump and his campaign have to do a lot better than this.”
Where is your evidence this was raised by Trump’s campaign? Your blatant hatred of all things Trump is noted, and it’s comical to observe, in a sad way.
Evidence, please?
There is none, other than their wish to silence Trump has resulted in exactly that…Trump is staying silent which is driving them to start spewing lies.
Jamie Raskin, the ranking member of the House Oversight committee and one of the lead Trump impeachment managers, is an “unknown Congressman?” The fucking guy is in the news every other day. Try again.
By the way, the Trump campaign has had nothing to do with raising this issue, as Old School has properly pointed out.
You really are a special kind of stupid. You should focus on continuing to shill for wind power in Iowa.
Raskin was also hand-picked by Pelosi for the corrupt witch hunt J6 committee. Everyone knows who he is. Except apparently JR?
Correctamundo… JR is this site’s version of Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho, all jacked up on Brawndo.
He’s as sharp as a bowling ball, but he makes for great target practice.
It’s got electrolytes!
did you EVER think that movie would turn into a historical documentary??
that movie has what politicians crave.
Raskin is hardly unknown. He’s one of the leading and best known Dems in the House. He speaks for the Dems. The answer is to make sure Reps control at least one house on Jan 3, and preferably both.
I hoped Trump would not pick a Republilcan Senator as VP, because we need each and every one. I’m from Ohio – hopefully, we will send another Republican to replace Vance, and to balande D-Sherrod Brown. Who has endorsed Kamala Harris.
Vance will remain in the senate until at least after the election, and if his vote is needed on Jan 6 he won’t resign until after that.
Technically he could remain in the senate while also serving as vice president (and thus senate president), but he wouldn’t be able to cast both a deliberative and a casting vote, so it would be stupid to do so unless his state had a Dem governor who would appoint a Dem to replace him. No senator elected vice president has ever remained in the senate, because it makes no sense.
(Also because there’s a common myth that they can’t, but that’s not the case.)
I’m going to need to see the receipts on this one.
“No person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either house during his continuance in office.”
The vice presidency is not an “office under the United States”. Neither is the presidency, so 0bama didn’t have to resign from the senate before being sworn in as president. But a person would have to be insane to try to do both jobs at once. The presidency alone is really too big a job for one person, and visibly ages its incumbents; trying to do a senator’s job as well would qualify someone for a padded cell and removal from both jobs.
Only your first first four words are accurate. You really don’t think.
Unknown?? Where have you been living?? Under a rock??
He’s a persistent little Marxist, isn’t he!!??!!
This is the Democrat’s version of “democracy”. If we don’t like who the voters choose, we’ll just change it.
Certainly worked on Joe Biden. Fourteen million votes, indeed.
Remember — it’s never “insurrection,” when the vile and wretched Dhimmi-crats do it. Then, it’s allegedly righteous, laudable and self-congratulatory “resistance.”
You can have my constitutional rights when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
Making the assumption [not certain] that we actually have a national election in November, and that the votes are honestly counted and honestly reported; the Left will do what they will do. And the American people will do what they will do. And only the Great Blue Sky Tengri Nor knows what the outcome will be.
Subotai Bahadur
Since the 14th amendment does not state President or Vice President, Raskin is imagining what the amendment means. The disqualification is for office, period. The Senate and House are not offices, hence the reason the 14th specifically names them in addition. Likewise, the Presidency is not an office of the United States. It is a branch of government.
This is correct. But Congress could take a different view, and if so the courts might defer to it under the political question doctrine. So the best guarantee that this doesn’t happen is to elect Rep majorities to both houses.
Live by the sword, die by the sword. If the current trajectory does not change the FA/FO slope will have an exponent added to curve the vector away from success.
Toupees or weaves don’t work for everyone. Be bald and be bold about it. It’s not as if anyone did anything wrong to become bald.
Let me tell you about a meth lab explosion.
Sure looks as if the Democrats are very, very scared of Donald J. Trump. Very. Makes one wonder how far they would go …
we’ve already seen how far they are willing to go in Butler, PA
Jamie is a threat to democracy
Why are the Democrats so scared of Trump?
Is it because they could be facing Treason, Insurrection and Conspiracy charges related to their 2020 voter fraud, and political abuse of the legal and congressional systems?
What next, will Democrats set up a staged attack on Harris to diminish public upraising over the DC Swamp failed attempt on Trump?
Narrator: Congress won’t disqualify Trump.
Raskin reminds me of the whiny kid that got bullied in school and whose voice did not change until he turned 25.
rampaging Trump mobs
if that were a thing many people would be (accurately) scared and in hiding.
has not happened.
yet.
This brilliant man is the living embodiment of all the negative stereotypes that feed into antisemitism. It is a shame that such an intellect is just a malevolent force used to thwart western values. His son’s suicide note reads, “take care of the animals and the global poor.” Maybe Jamie should have spent more time taking his son to ball games.
He has a lot in common with Sheldon Whitehouse and the Bug-eyed Burbank Bolshevik. Then, there’s Chuck Schumer.
There is nothing like talking about an insurrection before it happens and blaming the other side for it!