The 14th Amendment Sec 3 does not apply to the Presidency

This is becoming a rather large subject moving into primary season. Multiple states are attempting to stop Donald Trump from being on the ballot. They are referencing the 14th Amendment, Sec 3 which was designed to make sure that those who participated in the Civil War could not be elected and cause havoc in the US Government. I can understand this and at the time made sense. There is more to this though and if you wade through the media yelling INSURRECTION and HE IS NOT QUALIFIED and actually read it...nothing bars a president or past president.

Minnesota Case

Denver Case

This is the wording. No interpretation...just what was ratified.

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.

No person shall be in Congress.
No person can hold any office in the US or State.
No person can be an elector.
No person can be a judge.

But nowhere does it say, you cannot be President. It starts with Congress and works it way down too all other appointments....but not the Presidency.

There is also a modern day precedent that you do not hear in the media too much. 2022 Mid-terms was the testing ground for the left.

Link

A Georgia judge on Monday upheld Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s eligibility to run for reelection, handing another defeat to the activist groups that have tried to use the US Constitution’s ban against insurrectionists holding office to disqualify GOP candidates.

The only reason it is moving forward still in some states is the decision does not got to a jury but to an elected official. This is pure election interference. Nothing more.

So, can anyone show me where in the 14th Amendment is specifically says you cannot run for President or Vice President for that matter? I mean, if it was that important to make sure of that do you not think it would have been included? Seems to me it was not about the highest office but making sure there would not be those under them to oppose.

I have read multiple articles where 'legal scholars' say it does not say it but applied and the opposite who says the President is not listed. I am sure this will go to the Supreme Court. Will the argument then be that state rights should supersede the Constitution? I thought that was the opposite of what the left fights for like...Roe v Wade.

Besides, the person they want to stop, Donald Trump, was NEVER convicted of insurrection. The clock is ticking because the first primaries drop very soon.

a reply to: matafuchs

" No person...(no person)...can hold office in the United States or State."

You posted it...all on a word, where elsewhere the phrase itself includes all. NO. PERSON.

On that? What is it youre not understanding with that pretty specific phrase? Respectfully..

a reply to: matafuchs

Legalese is a bitch but it's there.

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

Any office. That's President and Cabinet members. It doesn't list Secretary of State, but it's definitely applicable too.

But so what if it applies...

I personally think they are going to have a problem proving it beyond a reasonable doubt. It's circumstantial and hearsay. I don't think he explicitly commanded his flock to do sh*t, but they chose to interpret his meaning on what he meant and acted on their own accord.

He can legally argue he meant he just wanted them to protest outside and make their voices heard, and no one can prove otherwise. Prevent it... through peaceful protest. Likewise, his lack of reaction during doesn't prove complicity with the capital storming. He could have been ecstatic as a little kid his supporters ransacked Pelosi's office, and you still can't prove he intended it beforehand.

Honestly, the herd-minded mob nature of his supporters is his exoneration.

There needs to be him BEFOREHAND saying he was going to give a speech in which he directed his followers to storm the capital EXPLICITLY.

This is a waste of time, just everybody reacting. And going off cuff. And I don't even like the pandering rat.

Trump has been charged with inciting an insurrection and states are using those charges to try and keep him off the ballot in Nov. 2024. So much for 'innocent until proven guilty'.

a reply to: matafuchs

the good news is, there was no insurrection. There was a riot. And unlike any other riot in history, almost everyone who participated, including those who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, have been arrested, charged and jailed. Most other riots, even when government buildings were set on fire with the intent to burn up the people inside, there were almost no arrests.

So the entire premise is based on a fantasy. it's something idiots do.

I'm also pretty sure Donald Trump never took up arms for the Confederacy back in the day.

Could be wrong though. History is whatever these fruitcakes want it to be after all.

a reply to: Ohanka

there was a statue commemorating the event, but they took it down.

a reply to: Degradation33

Correct. That is the piece that will be scrutinized. LIke someone else mentioned, why do they not include SecState, etc, but at the same time why include Congress separate?

I read it, as most things, as a list top to bottom. Congress, then the electors, then the States....I understand it as there is no provision for the top two seats in the country. VP or POTUS.

So, it is open to interpretation but there is a case where it shows that even if convicted of Insurrection/sedition you can run for President. I had forgotten about this person but someone in another thread brought him up. I had read about him in a book about Woodrow Wilson. His name is Eugene V. Debs.

He was convicted of sedition in 1918 and ran for President as a Socialist in 1920. Got about 5% of the vote. So, this would show that running for the highest office in the land is not prevented by the 14th Amendment.

Why was it not applied then is the question I would ask all of those who now say it applies.

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: matafuchs

" No person...(no person)...can hold office in the United States or State."

You posted it...all on a word, where elsewhere the phrase itself includes all. NO. PERSON.

On that? What is it youre not understanding with that pretty specific phrase? Respectfully..

So, you're saying they would start with and specifically include Senators and Representatives, work their way down, then just assume everyone would kow they were also including the office of the President - the highest office in the land - without specifying it plainly?

Allow me to...

ROTFLMAOSHIPMP!!!!!

a reply to: matafuchs

The mistake that further polarized America was calling easily rattled mob mentality an insurrection.

It invented the double standard that held Portlandia rioters in a different category than Jan 6th rioters. Same triggers, same stupidity, same following of the leader, different result.

As is often argued, the media's insistence to simultaneously exonerate the left and demonize the right for like behavior is why this is even being discussed.

As it turns out Trump was the catalyst this country needed to show it itself, and now our politics revolve around a single polarizing individual, with no escape from the witch hunts and victim cards. Even the GOP is splitting around him. Democrats want his imprint on politics gone, but instead he changed the landscape entirely, and his impact is coming back with divine conviction at its halfway point.

Its starting to seem like... the rain will kill us all. World wants to do armegeddon for real this time.

a reply to: tanstaafl

I believe the 14th was written specifically to exclude the two highest offices. It is about those who could be elected that would work to circumvent and prevent what the elected POTUS wants.

It is really not that hard to understand.

a reply to: Degradation33

Great song....

a reply to: matafuchs

You answer your own question in the OP:

"hold any office, civil or military"

As long as that office is mandated to uphold the Constitution.

The presidency is a civil office position, bound by the Constitution. But can actually be considered both civil and military, as commander in chief.

_______________________

Nothing supersedes the Constitution. Which means, any officials bound by the Constitution, at any government level, local, state or federal, have to abide by it.

This will go to the Supreme Court, and all people will have to legally abide by what they decide. One way or the other.

_______________________

It does not require a conviction, according to the Federalist Society. This is how they explain it:

It is a QUALIFICATION. A qualification says you have to be 35, be born in the US and not having broken your oath by aiding an insurrection. Sedition is insurrection. You don't have to be convicted of being 35 any more than you have to be convicted of being born out of the country. There does not need to be a court ruling on this, it is self evident and self enforcing.

I don't know if this is the way it is or not, but heavy-hitter Republican lawyers think so.

The lawyers have to prove the aiding part. To what level does one have to be involved to aid an insurrection. That's what's being discussed in Colorado now.

a reply to: Mahogani

Where does it say you cannot run for President? You only want to see it your way and find the line that would exclude him.

Tell me, how did someone convicted of sedition run for and garner about 9% of the vote? This is precedent that is does not apply to those running for the office of President.

Case Closed.

a reply to: matafuchs

This certainly is one gaping hole in the asinine argument of Trump being disqualified to run via sec. 3 of the 14 Amendment.

Why are the POTUS and VP not specifically listed, but instead start at the appointed level and work their way down?

Another is a few SCOTUS rulings, one where it's held that suing even federal offices is not the correct remedy and that it is rather up to Congress.

Another is the due process argument. Looking at the 14th as a "qualification" defeats the entire purpose of the 14th amendment. That being the granting of rights inalienable, until due process.

a reply to: Mahogani

maybe because it isnt a crime to be under 35 or born outside the US?

i think the stronger argument is crime must be proven guilty

a reply to: matafuchs

As the infamous hypocrite liar, Hillary Clinton once said, "What difference, at this point, does it make?".

a reply to: matafuchs

You only want to see it your way

The same could be said of you. There are qualified lawyers on both sides of the debate that make compelling arguments. This will ultimately up to the courts to decide but it's hardly settled law right now.

a reply to: JinMI

Because it was not about preventing a president. It was about preventing electors and Congress from trying to wreck havoc post Civil War. Some folks here need to not listen to Raskin and read a history book.

It was all about protecting the presidency and now they want to make it about preventing it.

SCOTUS has already ruled once on this and sent it back to the lower courts. MTG was allowed to run.

This is all a show and when enacted it will not be based on the 14th Amendment it will be by the State Election Officials.

originally posted by: Mahogani


"hold any office, civil or military"

As long as that office is mandated to uphold the Constitution.

The presidency is a civil office position, bound by the Constitution. But can actually be considered both civil and military, as commander in chief.

That is reaching... They would specify Congress, but not the President? That makes zero sense. Also, the President is NEVER in the military and is ALWAYS a civilian while being commander and chief and our forefathers wanted it that way.