“The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again”

[Blkfyre]

https://electionlawblog.org/?p=138267

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/donald-trump-constitutionally-prohibited-presidency/675048/

https://time.com/6305003/trump-indictment-14th-amendment/

The idea that Trump is banned by the Constitution from running again is getting a lot of traction:

"The disqualification clause operates independently of any such criminal proceedings and, indeed, also independently of impeachment proceedings and of congressional legislation. The clause was designed to operate directly and immediately upon those who betray their oaths to the Constitution, whether by taking up arms to overturn our government or by waging war on our government by attempting to overturn a presidential election through a bloodless coup.

"The former president's efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and the resulting attack on the U.S. Capitol, place him squarely within the ambit of the disqualification clause, and he is therefore ineligible to serve as president ever again. The most pressing constitutional question facing our country at this moment, then, is whether we will abide by this clear command of the Fourteenth Amendment's disqualification clause."

And, before it's said either I or the people writing the articles don't know what they are talking about, the people behind the current thinking are:

Judge J. Michael Luttig, a former Federal judge on the Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit
Laurence Tribe, Professor Emeritus at Harvard Law School, who taught Constitutional Law at Harvard for five Decades.

[dogwalker]

Well ok. 
But who will enforce it....Supreme Court (with conservatives in the majority)?
Even if there was a judgement against Trump would it be held up on appeals?
I would think if that is so true the RNC would not be trying to get him in debates.
He would not be on primary ballots.
Etc.
It seems about 70 million Americans would disagree with claims he betrayed any oath or tried to overturn an election.

[CigarMan]

So does that apply if a person has been ACCUSED or only when CONVICTED?  So far he has not been convicted of any of the seditious acts.  Paying a porn star off is not an act of sedition.

[bats]

Well ok. 
But who will enforce it....Supreme Court (with conservatives in the majority)?
Even if there was a judgement against Trump would it be held up on appeals?
I would think if that is so true the RNC would not be trying to get him in debates.
He would not be on primary ballots.
Etc.
It seems about 70 million Americans would disagree with claims he betrayed any oath or tried to overturn an election.

The writers argue that the clause is self-executing, but realistically someone with standing (probably any American of voting age) will have to take it to court.

Ultimately it would wind up with the Supreme Court, but I don't see them overturning a ruling that bars him from running. Even the conservatives among them must understand that if Trump regains power, their own power will be severely diminished. That's how it works in an autocracy.

[dogwalker]

Yeh.....self-executing is hilarious.  Trump would never ding himself.

[Hobby]

Trump has to be convicted first before the 14th Amendment can apply.  Saying he participated is not enough. The constitution also stands for Innocent until proven guilty...

I doubt the Supreme Court will be friendly to Trump they know now what Trump is all about and not likely to do him any favors.

[dogwalker]

Trump has been indicted over those issues. 
That means there is enough information for probable cause.
So another question I have is, given that, why isn't the Supreme Court acting via 14th amendment?
Maybe something is in progress since much of what they do with regard to future cases is (usually) not public.
Maybe nothing is going on.

[bats]

Trump has to be convicted first before the 14th Amendment can apply.  Saying he participated is not enough. The constitution also stands for Innocent until proven guilty...


I doubt the Supreme Court will be friendly to Trump they know now what Trump is all about and not likely to do him any favors.

According to the professor and the judge who wrote the opinion piece, the 14th amendment operates independently of any criminal proceeding or even any impeachment proceeding. So, in their view at least, he doesn't even have to be indicted.

Trump has been indicted over those issues. 
That means there is enough information for probable cause.
So another question I have is, given that, why isn't the Supreme Court acting via 14th amendment?
Maybe something is in progress since much of what they do with regard to future cases is (usually) not public.
Maybe nothing is going on.

My understanding, which is surely imperfect, is that the Supreme Court can't decide issues just because they think they've got something to say. Instead, Article III effectively limits the court's jurisdiction to actual "cases" and "controversies" brought before them by parties to an actual dispute.

[HighStepper]

My understanding, which is surely imperfect, is that the Supreme Court can't decide issues just because they think they've got something to say. Instead, Article III effectively limits the court's jurisdiction to actual "cases" and "controversies" brought before them by parties to an actual dispute.

Yes you are correct. The US Supreme Court is NOT a trial court with a jury to determine guilt or innocence.

The former president Trump was impeached for his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and inciting the attack on the U.S. Capitol, but was not convicted by the Senate.

"...any person who has taken an oath to support and defend our Constitution and thereafter rebels against that sacred charter, either through overt insurrection or by giving aid or comfort to the Constitution's enemies." It would seem to me if he is convicted in the pending January 6th case, before Election Day he could be barred.

As to to "the 14th amendment operates independently of any criminal proceeding or even any impeachment proceeding. So, in their view at least, he doesn't even have to be indicted."
I'm not sure how that works. The Secretaries of State in each state could remove Trump from the ballot. However, wouldn't they need some legal cause beyond probable cause?
 

[bats]

I'm not sure how that works. The Secretaries of State in each state could remove Trump from the ballot. However, wouldn't they need some legal cause beyond probable cause?
  

I don't think anyone quite knows how that would work. As is often the case with Trump, we're in uncharted waters. Surely, however, the issue would, at some point, have to go before the Supreme Court.

[Danno]

unchartered waters, like every time MTG says something about someone in a committee meeting, they have look in the rules book to see what the punishment is. lol

[Romanticlover]

Even if the Secretary of State removed a candidate from the ballot, voters can write-in a candidate.
What happens then?

Strange times we live in.

[HighStepper]

Even if the Secretary of State removed a candidate from the ballot, voters can write-in a candidate.
What happens then?

Strange times we live in.

As of 2020, most states allowed voters to write in the name of a candidate who does not appear on the ballot. However, states had varying rules about which write-in votes would be counted. These rules can be grouped into three categories:
•    No requirements for whom voters may write-in
•    Only write-in votes for registered candidates will be counted.
•    No write-in votes allowed[2]
Eight states did not have any requirements and would allow voters to write in any name as a write-in vote.[3] Those states were Alabama, Delaware, Iowa, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, and Wyoming.
Thirty-three states would only accept votes for write-in candidates who officially registered with the state. In order for the vote to be counted, the candidate must have submitted all the necessary registration documents by a specific deadline, either by filing paperwork, paying a fee, collecting signatures, or some combination of the aforementioned.[4][5]
Nine states (Arkansas, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina and South Dakota), did not allow write-in votes.
https://ballotpedia.org/Write-in_candidate

You cannot view this attachment.

[HighStepper]

I've been rethinking the issue.

According to the professor and the judge who wrote the opinion piece, the 14th amendment operates independently of any criminal proceeding or even any impeachment proceeding. So, in their view at least, he doesn't even have to be indicted.

"...any person who has taken an oath to support and defend our Constitution and thereafter rebels against that sacred charter, either through overt insurrection or by giving aid or comfort to the Constitution's enemies."

Trump repeated the promise in an interview with Newsmax saying, "I would absolutely give them a pardon" Trump has repeated this claim in numerous media outlets.

Donald Trump said he would pardon and apologize to those who participated in the deadly attack on the US Capitol on January 6 if he were elected to the White House again. Link

"Justice for All" is a charity record by former United States President Donald Trump and the J6 Prison Choir, a choir of about 20 men imprisoned for their involvement in the January 6 United States Capitol attack.

Trump's repeated statements to pardon people convicted of the Jan 6th insurrection is giving them support and comfort.

State officials that take Trump off the ballot will be immediately taken to court. Conversely state officials that do NOT take Trump off the ballot could be taken to court. These cases could wind up on a fast track to the US Supreme Court.

[dogwalker]

the court's jurisdiction is for actual "cases" and "controversies" brought before them by parties to an actual dispute.

Yes that's correct so I'll rephrase my question to whether such a case has been submitted to the Supreme Court if it's so true there is "increasing interest" and there's enough legal backing behind it.....and why wasn't this done let's say  on about Jan. 7th, 2021----lol?  I get that big cases take a long time and prosecutors want to do a thorough job but some of this stuff is SOOOOOO SLOWWWWWWWWWWW.