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

a reply to: matafuchs

I think it was more about equal powers rather than protection, even though I'm sure there's a legitimate argument for it.

We have the impeachment process for that exact reason. So much so that Article II Section 4 specifically says so:

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article 1 Sec 3 also specifies the process:

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

a reply to: matafuchs

SCOTUS never ruled in MTG's case and it certainly didn't rule that she's not covered by the 14th Amendment.

A group of voters challenged in state court she was ineligible to run because of the 14th Amendment. In response, she sued Raffensberger in federal court claiming that the challenge was unconstitutional. The federal court rejected her claim and she filed an appeal.

Before the appellate court made their ruling, the state court ruled that the 14th Amendment was not applicable because Greene was not involved in the attack on the Capitol. Raffensberger affirmed the court's ruling and allowed Greene on the ballot.

As there was no longer any issues over Greene being in the ballot, the appellate court ruled the point moot and dropped the case.

a reply to: JinMI

Yes. It specifies the position.

originally posted by: matafuchs
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.

It’s just like the 2nd amendment argument.

Keep parsing the words and syntax and context until it meets the leftist needs.

I too think they named the folks specifically who this applies to. It does say anyone, but then says
“who having …..”, a qualifier.

It does say officer of the united states, then goes on to qualify that as congress, state reps, judges, and “officers”.

Officers is pretty granular. Saying it this way sounds like soldiers, cops, agents, marshals, etc.

If they had wanted to include Pres / VP / cabinet, they would have said this.

It’s like “well regulated militia”. It doesn’t mean a bunch of things that it doesn’t say (army, cops, guard), as leftists try to “prove”. It means everyday citizens who are armed and have a decent plan to protect their families and communities. This is literally the entire concept of the constitution ….. non government actions by the people.

11.3.2023

Congress is only working 20 days between now and January 3rd.

Sadly, it appears the only thing they will be able to say they accomplished in 2023, is passing a budget... Which is a basic annual ritual.

Subpoena The Bidens?

Conduct a president Biden impeachment hearing?

With each passing day, those things look less likely for 2023.

If president Joe Biden gets us into a war, all items related to holding Joe Biden accountable, and possibly the next election, are delayed indefinitely.

BUT keep this in mind regarding the Get Trump fanatics in the DOJ and the judiciary...The bad guys do not take weeks-long breaks!
🤔🚨

www.house.gov...

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..

Exactly, and why would one person, the President, be put above all others. Isn't that creating a monarchy and isn't that why Americans fought the revolutionary war in the first place?

a reply to: quintessentone

I guess we would have to ask the ones that wrote it but we cannot, can we.

However, it has been shown that someone actually convicted of sedition against the US Government can run for President so why can't a person who was not convicted?

Pretty cut and dry.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: quintessentone

I guess we would have to ask the ones that wrote it but we cannot, can we.

However, it has been shown that someone actually convicted of sedition against the US Government can run for President so why can't a person who was not convicted?

Pretty cut and dry.

Why would anyone need to ask them when it's clear the reason for the writing of the laws by them? To not be a monarchy. To not put one man above all others.

a reply to: matafuchs

Where has it been shown that a person convicted of sedition can run for President?

a reply to: Threadbarer

Eugene Debs,

here his campaign button he ran while still in prison in atlanta and a quick wiki link

Debs was noted for his oratorical skills, and his speech denouncing American participation in World War I led to his second arrest in 1918. He was convicted under the Sedition Act of 1918 and sentenced to a 10-year term. President Warren G. Harding commuted his sentence in December 1921. Debs died in 1926, not long after being admitted to a sanatorium due to cardiovascular problems that developed during his time in prison. Biography

Debs was the Socialist Party of America candidate for president in 1904, 1908, 1912, and 1920 (the final time from prison).

Eugene V. Debs

a reply to: Threadbarer

Page 1 of the thread....about halfway down. I had totally forgot about the guy as I had read about him in a book I read about Woodrow Wilson.

a reply to: BernnieJGato

There is my reminder.... . Glad you mentioned him in another thread I had totally forgot.

a reply to: matafuchs

another thing that really gets me trump hasn't even been convicted of anything. there's no legal grounds under the 14th.
the only thing they got is their options of what happened. and the convictions of others.

a reply to: BernnieJGato

Technically Debs was not convicted of sedition. He was convicted of obstructing military recruitment and enlistment.

a reply to: Threadbarer

He was convicted under the Sedition Act....so what part of that is technically not sedition? Wilson called him a 'traitor to his country'.....

S+F

Funny that you mention section 3 of the 14th because I was posting about section 4 of the 14th just the other day. Why are hedge funds allowed to short US treasuries? Treasuries are public debt. Short selling treasuries is betting against them and potentially profiting from it - that's not just doubt that's putting action to your words.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

While you're right about the wording of section 3, I want to make it clear that the January 6th protest was just a protest. If it was an insurrection a lot of the weasels in the White House would be dead and our country would be a lot better off right now.

a reply to: Threadbarer

Technically Debs was not convicted of sedition

there is no technical to it. Debs tried to obstruct a official U.S. Function during a war, that was covered by a laws on the books. doesn't matter what it was about, and admitted to it in court. the sedition act was a amendment to the Espionage Act Debs was arrested on 10 charges under the Espionage Act and Sedition Act, he was tried for 6, and convicted on 3.

here is a brief description of what he was convicted of.

The jury found him guilty on 3 counts: attempting to incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, and refusal of duty in the armed forces of the U.S.; obstructing and attempting to obstruct the recruiting and enlistment service; and uttering language to incite, provoke, and encourage resistance to the U.S. Judge Westenhaver sentenced Debs to 10 years' imprisonment pending an appeal to the Supreme Court, which upheld Deb's conviction. Debs was pardoned by Pres. Warren Harding in 1921.
DEBS FEDERAL COURT TRIAL

here is mention of the Sedition Act , from his appeal to SCOTUS,

This is an indictment under the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917, c. 30, Tit. 1, § 3, 40 Stat. 219, as amended by the Act of May 16, 1918, c. 75, § 1, 40 Stat. 553
Debs v. United States, 249 U.S. 211 (1919)

when was sedition act passed, why i do believe it was May 16th 1918.

The Sedition Act of 1918 (Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States) 65–150, 40 Stat. 553, enacted May 16, 1918) was an Act of the United States Congress that extended the Espionage Act of 1917 to cover a broader range of offenses, notably speech and the expression of opinion that cast the government or the war effort in a negative light or interfered with the sale of government bonds.[1]
Sedition Act of 1918

weren't some of the 6th protestors convicted for obstruction of official proceeding under sedition charges? i believe the answer is yes. trump hasn't been convicted of anything the 14th does not apply.

a reply to: BernnieJGato

Obstruction of an official proceeding falls under Chapter 73 of the USC which pertains to obstruction of justice charges.

Doesn't matter. There is precedent. That is all that is needed in law. It is not about how to interpret something. It is about applying the actual law.

There is nothing legally binding to stop Donald Trump from being on any state ballot. Nothing. FFS he was not even convicted by the people he was supposed to be leading an insurrection against when he was impeached for what they are saying he did in these cases.

a reply to: matafuchs

There's no precedent as there has never been an attempt to use Section 3 to keep someone off of a Presidential ballot.