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

a reply to: Threadbarer

did you not read this you so your saying that it's a lie that this is

from the first link

obstructing and attempting to obstruct the recruiting and enlistment service; and uttering language to incite, provoke, and encourage resistance

and from the justia link,

The fourth count alleges that he obstructed and attempted to obstruct the recruiting and enlistment service of the United States and to that end and with that intent delivered the same speech, again set forth. There was a demurrer to the indictment on the ground that the statute i

so your saying that it's a lie he was charged with obstruction and attempted obstruction.

and here is a copy of the verdict from the trial in Ohio,

Debs Verdict

you still haven't gotten any better than your old account.

a reply to: Threadbarer

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

but there is precedent of someone who has been convicted of what their claiming running for president. key words been convicted.

I am reading that the 1918 Sedition Act did not allow free speech and Debs was against WW I and he broke the law by speaking up.

Debs was behind bars in the federal penitentiary in Atlanta, Georgia, serving a 10-year sentence for sedition. It was a not a bum rap. Debs had defiantly disobeyed a law he deemed unjust, the Sedition Act of 1918.

The act was an anti-free speech measure passed at the behest of President Woodrow Wilson. The law made it illegal for a U.S. citizen to “willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the United States government” or to discourage compliance with the draft or voluntary enlistment into the military.

In April 1917, when America joined World War I’s bloodbath in Europe, Debs became a fierce opponent of American involvement in what he saw as a death cult orchestrated by rapacious munitions manufacturers. On May 21, 1918, wary of a small but energized and eloquent anti-war movement, Wilson signed the Sedition Act into law.

Debs would not be muzzled. One June 18, 1918, in an address in Canton, Ohio, he declared that American boys were “fit for something better than for cannon fodder.”

In short order, he was arrested and convicted of violating the Sedition Act. At his sentencing, he told the judge he would not retract a word of his speech even if it meant he would spend the rest of his life behind bars. “I ask for no mercy, plead for no immunity,” he declared. After a brief stint in the West Virginia Federal Penitentiary, he was sent to serve out his sentence at the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary.

www.brandeis.edu...

Speaking out against war seems to not be the case with Trump.

Passed on May 16, 1918, as an amendment to Title I of the Espionage Act of 1917, the act provided for further and expanded limitations on speech. Ultimately, its passage came to be viewed as an instance of government overstepping the bounds of First Amendment freedoms.

However, in this instance Holmes, along with Justice Louis D. Brandeis, dissented from the majority, arguing that the “clear and present danger” test was not met under the circumstances arising in the case. Specifically, Holmes felt that Abrams had not possessed the necessary intent to harm the U.S. war effort. In contrast to his majority opinion in Schenck, Holmes’s dissenting opinion in Abrams urged that political speech be protected under the First Amendment.


The Sedition Act of 1918 was repealed in 1920 although many parts of the original Espionage Act remain in force.

firstamendment.mtsu.edu...

a reply to: BernnieJGato

But no one challenged his eligibility to run. Ergo, no precedent was set.

a reply to: quintessentone

it's not what the deed was so much as what the deed could and does fall under.
and again trump is not convicted, anybody can have a opinion of what somebody did, but until found guilty in a court of law, it doesn't mean sh@@.

they have to find something that has been proven in a trial against him not others.

a reply to: BernnieJGato

I straight up said he was charged with obstruction. What he wasn't charged with is sedition.

a reply to: Threadbarer

he's still not been convicted of obstruction, there are no grounds for being barred from running only on accusation.

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
a reply to: quintessentone

it's not what the deed was so much as what the deed could and does fall under.
and again trump is not convicted, anybody can have a opinion of what somebody did, but until found guilty under a court of law, it doesn't mean sh@@.

they have to find something that has been proven in a trial against him not others.

I suppose the point I am trying to make in today's time, does the Sedition Act look at the deed only or the harm/damages the deed did? No harm, no foul?

a reply to: BernnieJGato

And there are legal scholars that say Section 3 is self-triggering and no conviction is needed.

As I've said, we can argue back and forth but as of right now there's no precedent on this matter and it will ultimately be decided by people with much more Constitutional law knowledge than us.

a reply to: quintessentone

i would say both, and then again they would have to be found guilty of the charge, not just a bunch of folks saying they did this or he did that lets bar him from running. that is unconstitutional.

here is the U.S. code and law on,

CHAPTER 115—TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

a reply to: Threadbarer

can't be if that was the case it could be used on just about anybody that protested without being found guilty of a crime. again unconstitutional also if that was the case there are at least 5 or 6 in congress now that should be booted.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: BernnieJGato

But no one challenged his eligibility to run. Ergo, no precedent was set.

My God.

“There is no such thing as precedent because we didn’t do it to Trump yet”.

Good Lord. You’re not embarrassed.

originally posted by: blindmellojello

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: BernnieJGato

But no one challenged his eligibility to run. Ergo, no precedent was set.

My God.

“There is no such thing as precedent because we didn’t do it to Trump yet”.

Good Lord. You’re not embarrassed.

Some people here are using the Debs situation as precedent but my point is that the Sedition Act of 1918 disallowed free speech against war and Des went against it and was charged accordingly but still ran for President while in prison. Debs really did no harm.

To me this is the precedent as how the Act is worded and as to how a perpetrator might be charged and sentenced even without doing actual harm.

a reply to: blindmellojello

It hasn't been done to anybody running for President. That's the point. Precedent doesn't exist. Therefore, it will be up to the courts to interpret the 14th Amendment.

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
a reply to: Threadbarer

he's still not been convicted of obstruction, there are no grounds for being barred from running only on accusation.

4 interesting points I heard on the radio -

-Trump is not currently charged with sedition or insurrection
-Trump was found innocent of insurrection in impeachment # 2
-The 14 TH was written to get civil war confederates and shelved (in some fashion, not sure what) after that
-The use of the term “officers of the US” in cases like this, has precedent as appointed rather elected officials
Not sure about these myself, but they sound reasonably pertinent.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: blindmellojello

It hasn't been done to anybody running for President. That's the point. Precedent doesn't exist. Therefore, it will be up to the courts to interpret the 14th Amendment.

You really think laws should be used differently person to person ? That’s terrible.

But don’t worry, not surprised !

a reply to: blindmellojello

What are you talking about? All I'm saying is that there is no precedent in this case so it will be up to the courts to set it.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: blindmellojello

What are you talking about? All I'm saying is that there is no precedent in this case so it will be up to the courts to set it.

There is precedent, you just don’t like it because it looks positive for Trump initially.

You want it reversed specifically against Trump.

a reply to: blindmellojello

Please cite the case that has ruled on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and whether it applies to Presidential candidates.

a reply to: quintessentone

Ask the Proud Boys....