Alex Wagner seems to be at an change from 1866, highlighted within the ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court docket, between Senators …
source
Alex Wagner seems to be at an change from 1866, highlighted within the ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court docket, between Senators …
source
The 14th amendment doesn't stop him from running for the US president/ helping someone become usa president ????
And yet this is one of the questions that the SCOTUS will be weighing first, even though it was already settled by the people who wrote the darn thing!
Very tricky, I am a blue dog democratic and totally support the democratic platform. All due respect to the esteemed Senators , the question of why the 14th Amendment excluded the office of the Presidency , this question was not answered in the affirmative but with a statement that the President was included in a fussy reference to every body holding . Did they run out of ink or just emotionally unable to print the word President. The intent was to make it fussy and live in the space of a 'Powerful' argument. We are talking about a criminal act that to be imposed would require a criminal trial. There are times where lead is used to solve disputes . Let's us hope that this problem will be solved at the voting booth , because this nation needs to get beyond WASP supremacy entitlement problem. Mr. Benjamin Franklin said, " We hang together, or we most assuredly will hang separately ".
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, This covers pretty much everything, including President.
This is what you're excluded from if you fall under THESE categories:
..who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress (not Trump), or as an officer of the United States (99% sure this doesn't cover Trump, as officers are an appointed position, not elected. We'll see what the SC says), or as a member of any State legislature (not Trump), or as an executive or judicial officer of any State (not Trump), 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 5
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Who has the power to enforce the provisions of this article? Only Congress.
On June 18, 1867, the President met with his cabinet and the President announced he had two opinions from the Attorney General. He then described how the insurrection clause would be enforced, and the cabinet voted on each point. The 7th point they discussed addressed the disenfranchisement of Officers of the United States and it contained a two-pronged test. 1. Did the person take an oath to support the constitution; 2. Did the person afterwards engage in a rebellion. Both must exist to work disqualification and must happen in order and time as was mentioned. People who took the oath but didn't engage in rebellion were not disqualified, so too were people who engaged in rebellion but had never taken the oath were not disenfranchised. All voted Aye except the Secretary of War. 8th point said that without limitation, any person who, before the rebellion held any office, civilian or millitary, who took an oath under the United States is subject to disenfranchisement. All voted Aye.
Hahaha imagine being so brainwashed that you’d argue AGAINST due process
If the Supreme Court doesn't uphold the 14th Amendment this country will cease to become a Nation of laws and will just be a nation of tribes and tribalism. It will also completely change how this country will function. If the Supreme Court doesn't hold Trump accountable then the Democrats need to realize this country has fundamentally changed and never give up the Presidency again. There will be no rule of law or democracy there is only power and who wields it. We can’t allow Fascists to ever wield it in this country as the US is too militarily powerful and would put all of humanity at risk.
They didn't want any person who has violated their oath to the Constitution and tried to overthrow government of this country by violence to hold ANY federal or state office or military rank except POTUS or VPOTUS because it's okay if they hold the MOST IMPORTANT AND POWERFUL OFFICES IN THIS COUNTRY. Yeah, that makes sense. You guys would be losing your effing minds if it was Biden and the DEMs.
This decision could reinforce their reputation or completely and permanently destroy SCOTUS – case closed
This woman is as stupid as she is dishonest. And this rant from her confirms everything that Trump says about MSM.
1. The original meaning of an Amendment is what the Congress which voted it into law understood it to mean, and if one out of two men in this conversation who wrote it, at first thought it didn't include the President, it's hardly likely that the rest of Congress managed to guess at the time that it did.
2. Contrary to what this stupid liar says, there is, in any case, nothing in the Amendment which prohibits anyone 'seeking' (her words) – i.e. 'running for', office. The Amendment prohibits someone from 'holding' the office. If it did apply to Trump, it would apply when he came to be sworn in, not when he was merely running for his party's nomination.
3. The Amendment doesn't define what 'insurrection' is, or who decides whether someone's guilty of it. But this very conversation makes it clear that it was intended to mean 'past rebels', which clearly meant Confederate Civil War veterans and instigators.
The whole debate at the time, made it clear that it was all about Civil War secessionists, and the only disagreement was whether they should just be banned from office or banned from voting as well.
A few lower court judges saying that in their opinion Trump has committed 'insurrection' is meaningless. He's never even been indicted for 'insurrection', let alone convicted. The only law on 'insurrection' in the USA defines 'insurrection' as:-
''An act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government''
At the time of the violent protest at the Capitol, Trump was still President so he can hardly be charged with 'insurrection' against himself, or revolting against his own 'authority'. Even if he could be convicted of insurrection they wouldn't be able to do it before he was sworn in, in January 2025. In which case he can pardon himself.
The only way to stop him becoming President when he wins in November would be to impeach him. And that's doomed to fail as well.
It applies between anyone seeking office at all levels of said office from Mayor to President!
But not all courts have jurisdiction to provide such ruling. It is only their opinion and that’s it. But America has always seem to be guilty until proven innocent, but claim the opposite. Until he’s found guilty of insurrection, he’s not an insurrectionist. Furthermore, the citizenship clause has also been misinterpreted. “Subject to its jurisdiction” is the caveat that throws a wrench in birthright citizenship. The children of Diplomats and visitors to the U.S. who are born here do not receive citizenship because they are still under the jurisdiction of their country. If you are born in the U.S. to parents who have residency/domicile or conduct business in the U.S., then you have citizenship. But it has to be of legal conduct. The 14th Amendment has been one of the most misinterpreted amendments in the constitution. You can’t conduct an illegal act and keep whatever you gain.
lol you can always tell what news is just democrat state propaganda! MSDNC, CNN and others are the same as Chinese state media!
MSNBC is going to get someone killed by promoting this any democratic attempt to keep Political opponents off the ballot, like a third world country.
Something I noticed, and it is bothering me a little:
Few people disqualified under the 14th just re-ran for their seats.
These people would go on to win said seats, and fill them without challenge.
Almost as if each instance, every election, has to be challenged?
Officer or not, insurrection or not … unless one has an agenda or just can't read, Sec. 5 gives Congress the ability to enforce, not the states. Too bad you sounded so excited …
“People shouldn’t be afraid of their government, governments should be afraid of their people” -V
A president is not listed in the 14th amendment. Commander in chief is not a military rank executive means executive of any state like governor. Civil officers are not allowed to show political affiliation or engage in activities under the Hatch Act if 1939 law while officers of the US are appointed by the senate under the Appointment clause.
People obviously have forgotten how to read sentences. Or is a separator so as such it should read like this
No person shall be…
-a Senator or Representative in Congress.
-elector of President and Vice-President,
-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.
-as an officer of the United States.
-as a member of any State legislature.
-as an executive or judicial officer of any State.
It was to protect the office if the president after what happened to Lincoln
The 14th amendment is so clearly written it’ll be fascinating to hear what the Justices say about it. If they truly believe in the right of States to self-determine and administer their own elections and Presidential Electors, they shouldn’t worry if some States conclude that Trump is an insurrectionist and other States don’t. What’s the point of having separate states if they can’t exercise their own due process and determine who qualifies?
I doubt the SCOTUS will give Americans the satisfaction of saying if Trump is or isn’t an Insurrectionist, they just need to determine a process of determining if he is or isn’t.
14th Amendment – Any Congressman who toke an oath and engaged in insurrection can no longer be a Congressman.
Trump was not in Congress and does not want to be in Congress.
It clearly does not say "Anyone"
James L. Alcorn: He was a Confederate officer and later served as a U.S. Senator from Mississippi after the war.
William Mahone: Mahone was a Confederate general and later served as a U.S. Senator from Virginia.
The 14th Amendment Section 3 applies to members of Congress who toke the oath and then engaged in an insurrection.
It does not apply to people who were not members of Congress.