Can Congress Disqualify Trump? What To Know After Supreme Court Keeps Him On Ballot

With The U.S. Supreme Court ruling on and striking down that insane Colorado case about eliminating Trump from Ballots because of an unfounded insurrection guilty finding, we now have the actual legal way to "get Trump", and Democrats are licking their chops !!

It's the actual law granting Congress to "disqualify" somebody from holding elected office !!

Very tough to apply today, but possible.

Note this was always in the Law !!

Now go figure it out. Come up with the Bill that could do it !!

🤓


"Community Note" Necessary:
The article says "Justices gave the power instead to Congress", but it was already in the existing Law, so Justices didn't "give" any power to Congress that Congress didn't already have.

Can Congress Disqualify Trump? What To Know After Supreme Court Keeps Him On Ballot


The Supreme Court killed efforts to kick former President Donald Trump off the ballot on Monday, ruling states can’t disqualify federal candidates under the 14th Amendment, but the court’s ruling left open the possibility of Congress trying to remove Trump if he wins—and experts warn the decision could lead to a “nasty post-election period.”

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that states cannot disqualify federal candidates under section three of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits people from holding public office who have taken an oath of office and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [U.S.], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

Justices gave the power instead to Congress, saying lawmakers have the power to enforce section three under section five of the 14th Amendment, which gives lawmakers power to enact “appropriate” legislation to enforce other parts of the amendment.

😎😀

Opinion from FindLaw

Is disqualification different than impeachment?

Yes. Someone who is impeached could be disqualified from holding public office in the future if they are convicted, and Congress applies such a punishment. But this is separate from disqualification under the 14th Amendment. Under Sections 3 and 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress can bar someone from holding office. But unlike an impeachment conviction, that decision could be overturned by the courts. Most importantly, disqualification under the 14th Amendment does not require the two-thirds vote needed to convict during an impeachment trial. However, two-thirds of both houses must agree to remove the "disability," once imposed.

a reply to: xuenchen

Yeah..... let's come up with that bill.

I don't know about anyone else but with the way prices and rates are right now, I could surely use a good ol fashioned civil war this winter.

originally posted by: xuenchen
With The U.S. Supreme Court ruling on and striking down that insane Colorado case about eliminating Trump from Ballots because of an unfounded insurrection guilty finding, we now have the actual legal way to "get Trump", and Democrats are licking their chops !!

The Supreme Court did not say that the Colorado courts' findings that Trump engaged in insurrection were unfounded. If they had made that statement, they would have had to examine the Colorado courts' reasoning on the matter and show where they went wrong. But they didn't do that, probably because they couldn't. They simply said that a State Court does not have the authority to decide the matter, so they reversed the decision to keep him off the ballot on those grounds. The fact that Trump is an adjudicated insurrectionist in Colorado still stands.

a reply to: xuenchen

The Supreme Court killed efforts to kick former President Donald Trump off the ballot on Monday, ruling states can’t disqualify federal candidates under the 14th Amendment, but the court’s ruling left open the possibility of Congress trying to remove Trump if he wins—and experts warn the decision could lead to a “nasty post-election period.”

This is just stupid. What’s the point of elections if 435 people can veto the outcome?

Why not just have the house pick the next president right now…..

a reply to: KKLOCO

What's the point of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of there's no mechanism to keep insurrectionists from running for federal office?

Why not just raise an uprising and seize control of the government instead of going through with an election?

a reply to: Boomer1947

The fact that Trump is an adjudicated insurrectionist in Colorado still stands.

This tells me you don't know what adjudicated means......

a reply to: Threadbarer

There is a mechanism and process.


Why didn't they use it?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Boomer1947

The fact that Trump is an adjudicated insurrectionist in Colorado still stands.

This tells me you don't know what adjudicated means......

Does it? That tells me that you don't. LOL

a reply to: xuenchen

Congress can "disqualify" or convict Trump, but it requires a majority, and they actively declined, twice. I wonder if there's a regulation about how many times the same charge can be filed because the 14th is useless if they have to wait out the cooldown effect before playing that card again.

Yes the job of congress is to make laws, no to interpret them, yes congress if they have a strong argument and enough vote can enforce the 14th on Trump.

Will congress get a bill, nope it will not happen, soo everybody settler down is not going to happen anytime soon congress could not even impeach him.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Boomer1947

The fact that Trump is an adjudicated insurrectionist in Colorado still stands.

This tells me you don't know what adjudicated means......

Does it? That tells me that you don't. LOL

Your disapproval means the world to me Sookie.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: KKLOCO

What's the point of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of there's no mechanism to keep insurrectionists from running for federal office?

Why not just raise an uprising and seize control of the government instead of going through with an election?

there is. It's called Impeachment. And had he been impeached and FOUND GUILTY in the SENATE, then there really wouldn't be any argument to be had. Kind of like now, but without the tears and tantrums.

a reply to: network dude

If impeachment and disqualification were the same thing, why was a new amendment needed following the Civil War?

a reply to: Threadbarer

For representatives of confederate states.


It's even spelled out in the opinion.

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: xuenchen
With The U.S. Supreme Court ruling on and striking down that insane Colorado case about eliminating Trump from Ballots because of an unfounded insurrection guilty finding, we now have the actual legal way to "get Trump", and Democrats are licking their chops !!

The Supreme Court did not say that the Colorado courts' findings that Trump engaged in insurrection were unfounded. If they had made that statement, they would have had to examine the Colorado courts' reasoning on the matter and show where they went wrong. But they didn't do that, probably because they couldn't. They simply said that a State Court does not have the authority to decide the matter, so they reversed the decision to keep him off the ballot on those grounds. The fact that Trump is an adjudicated insurrectionist in Colorado still stands.

Trump was “adjudicated” as “not an insurrectionist”
years ago by congress. Long before CO got to screwing around with it.
I guess in retarded-world, CO can use their states rights to pretend they reversed the failed federal impeachment. But that would be, well you know, retarded. And it’s your God given right to cheer for this like it’s 1984 ……. Which would be ….. oh hell we’ll never get out of this loop.

a reply to: xuenchen

They already knew it wouldn't work, so they tried to sidestep the real procedure with a civil suit in Colorado.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: KKLOCO

What's the point of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of there's no mechanism to keep insurrectionists from running for federal office?

Why not just raise an uprising and seize control of the government instead of going through with an election?

Read the quote again.

but the court’s ruling left open the possibility of Congress trying to remove Trump if he wins—and experts warn the decision could lead to a “nasty post-election period.”

It’s one thing to decline him the opportunity to run - and they’ve had plenty of time to do that. But they haven’t succeeded. It’s MONUMENTALLY (d)ifferent to change a decision made by the people after an election has taken place.

a reply to: Boomer1947

Brilliant deduction Watson!

Yes, I SAID it because it's true. Trump has yet to be convicted of insurrection.

And nobody has proven it with due process.

Now, start writing the Bill for Congress. Forward it to Jamie Raskin. 😀

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: xuenchen
With The U.S. Supreme Court ruling on and striking down that insane Colorado case about eliminating Trump from Ballots because of an unfounded insurrection guilty finding, we now have the actual legal way to "get Trump", and Democrats are licking their chops !!

The Supreme Court did not say that the Colorado courts' findings that Trump engaged in insurrection were unfounded. If they had made that statement, they would have had to examine the Colorado courts' reasoning on the matter and show where they went wrong. But they didn't do that, probably because they couldn't. They simply said that a State Court does not have the authority to decide the matter, so they reversed the decision to keep him off the ballot on those grounds. The fact that Trump is an adjudicated insurrectionist in Colorado still stands.

"The fact that Trump is an adjudicated insurrectionist in Colorado still stands. "

No it doesn't. The State has no authority to determine or adjudicate insurrection. 🤣🤣🤣🤣