There should NOT even be a question as to the legality of the 14th Amendment

[3825-87867]

as it applies to Trump and those who planned insurrection and stormed Congress.

I’ve heard arguments that the SCOTUS will decide. Bullshit. It’s black and white.

The verbiage is “SHALL” which means it’s sacrosanct. If Alito and Thomas and Rogers decide to reinterpret the 14th as to the meaning, then the 2nd must also be judged by the same criteria, right?

They’ve already re-figured the 1st with “You can’t yell fire in a crowed theater” to the “Free Speech Zones” of the 2004 Republican Convention and more.

Since the 2nd is supposedly not up for debate or reinterpretation so then neither can be the 14th.

And here’s where the misinterpretation comes in.

Insurrection
noun
1. an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government.

The 14th leaves no wiggle room. There’s no command for accusation, nothing about being convicted, nothing about being found guilty and nothing allowing appeal to any judicial party. And there is no current “augment” to this Amendment that guarantees any current Government or State official who took an oath to the U.S. to be in office once involved (not just accused or convicted, but engaged!) in an insurrection or rebellion against the U.S. or to have any recourse to legal protection. They are simply no longer employed by any Government! That statement is clear:

Amendment XIV

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.

Removing the extraneous, possibly confusing parts for explanation gives this:

Amendment XIV

No person shall… hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath… as an officer of the United States… 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.

There’s no get out of jail free card. The 14th is quite specific. Once you’ve been merely involved in an insurrection or rebellion, you no longer are part of the government nor will you ever be. Therefore, you must leave office immediately and cannot hold any government or state office even if running for election and wining!

Those already in office should have salaries, perks and any privileges stripped immediately. They should lose ANY government remuneration of any kind including medical, retirement and death benefits for themselves and their families.

This shouldn’t be a subject for even discussion or reinterpreting the 14ht if this court won’t discuss reinterpretation of the 2nd amendment.

Most amendments have been “augmented” since their inceptions. There’s no doubt this one will be again. And it’s interesting to note the 14th has been “updated or amended” more than any other for reasons ranging from sincerity to corporate and/or government greed and/or manipulation.

Obviously, this will be looked at by those Right Wing Partisans on today’s Court. But in the mean time, the full effect of the 14th should be enforced and anyone engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the U.S. should no longer be in office and must be immediately removed.

There are those here who may argue this point for whatever reasons, however, as of right now, there is no “amendment” or adjustment to the 14th that allows any U.S. Constitution oath-taken officer (and ALL elected and appointed officials are officers of the U.S.) to stay in office once having been or are engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the U.S. They should have no say in ANY legislation pending or proposed. They should have no voice in any vote or procedure in Federal or State Government and any such must be ignored when bills or laws are proposed or voted on. And any laws or bills voted on and passed or not by these individuals after their involvement must be readdressed. The 14th does not guarantee the right to due process for insurrection or rebellion!

Remove them immediately. By force if necessary. Just as was attempted by authorities January 6, 2021.

You know it would be done if the other faction were in power.

[Fiendish Thingy]

1. Reality says otherwise

And shame on you for calling for violence.

[3825-87867]

6. Force isn't violence

unless you think the Capitol Police used violence!

[Fiendish Thingy]

31. Describe a non-violent use of force.

Hint: violence doesn’t have to cause death or injury to be violent.

[former9thward]

2. No one in Congress or power has been charged with insurrection or rebellion.

Have you read any of the charges?

Just because you think due process is some academic concept does not make it so. Things in this country are not decided by anonymous internet posters.

[stopdiggin]

12. +1. -(nt)-

[Elessar Zappa]

3. Absolutely no to violence.

And this Supreme Court won’t agree with your interpretation.

[Silent Type]

4. We'll see if that works. Personally, ain't counting on it.

[Gaugamela]

5. Someone has to make the call, whether it's congress, an attorney general, or a court.

Otherwise anyone could gin up accusations against just about anyone. Is an act of civil disobedience an instance of resistance or insurrection? There are likely many republicans who would think so. Moreover, anyone who is disqualified will likely go to court to appeal.

There is a lot of discussion on this, and it probably won’t be settled until it works its way through the legal system.

[3825-87867]

8. Doesn't say a call must be made

Nice thought that there's some due process involved but none is specified. Simply engaging in insurrection (being there, being seen, making plans) is plain English. No allowance for arrest, trial or freedom or conviction. Just gone until you can fight it after.

Meanwhile, your job is gone. Just like in American Business. You're fired at the discretion of company rules. Fight it later.

[Effete Snob]

13. Ah, of course.

So, for example, the president can decide who has engaged in insurrection and order the military to remove from office anyone who disagrees with him or her.

Yah, that won’t be abused.

[stopdiggin]

16. the poster makes a perfectly valid (and rather important) point.

Is a march or protest (we'll say against abortion restrictions or a pipeline) in which a roadway is blocked, either inadvertently or not - or a town hall 'occupied', an 'insurrection' against a civil authority? And, any person on the street has perfect authority to decide this - on their own?

And further, you would advocate for such a system?
I'm afraid you and I (and I suspect a great number of legal opinion) are some substantial distance apart on this one ...

Even if it were legal (requiring a heaping dose of credulity) - it is still a really, really bad idea.

[Ms. Toad]

19. And when you are fired at the discretion of company rules,

Someone makes that call. That is the question here.

What is the mechanism for preventing him from appearing on the ballot or serving. Assuming no conviction is needed, it still isn't inherently about due process - it is about how he is prevented from running/removed from serving.

[Zeitghost]

24. Due process

Doesn't need to be specifically required, it's an inherent right.

[getagrip_already]

9. Actually, no, it isn't required.....

According to the two federalist society authors and Lawrence tribe, there is no requirement that a conviction under any statute occur.

All that is required is for someone like a secretary of state to declare that evidence exists to make it evident that the conditions of s3 are met, and tfg is automatically disqualified.

Of course at that point it would fast tack to scotus and they would make a call, but 6 of the 9 are federalist society disciples. If they go against the 14th amendment and a despot comes into power, they become irrelevant. They see that.

Go ahead and read the 14th section 3. It specifically avoids saying that a conviction is required. Just that it is evident. A much lower bar.

Challenges are already I n the courts. Win or lose, appeals will drag them to scotus.

[enough]

17. "Someone like a Secretary of State?" Who exactly is in that group?

[getagrip_already]

20. ???? Really - you need examples of who is a sos for each state?

Or am I missing your question?

In each state, the sos is responsible for certifying who will be on the state ballot. That's why I used them as an example.

If someone who was, say, 30 years old, submitted their name and signatures to be placed on the state ballot to run for president, the sos would disallow it because the person simply was disqualified under the conditions of the constitution.

It wouldn't have to go to court. The person wouldn't have to be charged with anything. They are just automatically disqualified.

That's how the 14th amendment s3 works. The sos simply makes a determination a candidate isn't qualified and refuses to list them on the ballot. Then a citizen or the candidate is free to take it to court.

Likewise, if the sos does add them, any citizen can challenge him in court that the candidate is unqualified and must be removed.

And appeals get filed. And up it goes.

[Zeitghost]

25. When you find yourself...

Agreeing with the Federalist Society and advocating that due process can be ignored. You might want to re-think your authoritarian, fascist position.

Our country does not operate on a system where "someone like a secretary of state" gets to declare someone an insurrectionist. That is what trials and courts are for.

[getagrip_already]

27. I find myself agreeing with Lawrence tribe and the constitution...

Are you upset it is an automatic dq if you are younger than 35 or not a natural citizen to run for potus?

You don't need to go to court to be dqd. You don't need a ruling. You just can't run or serve.

It's the same with 14as3.

That's not fascist. It's the constitution.

[Zeitghost]

29. Being a natural born citizen or being 35

Are established through official documentation, mainly birth records. Being an insurrectionist is also determined through official documentation, i.e. a court record establishing a guilty finding.

None of the three are simply declared by a single individual, they are backed up with legal proof.

[Fullduplexxx]

7. if that "shall" becomes maleable then so does "shall not be infringed"

[3825-87867]

10. Right!

As in the First Amendment, also.

Congress shall make no law respecting...

And we've seen that reinterpreted already.

[Effete Snob]

11. Oh, okay

If force is necessary, under whose command would you like that force to act?

Because that is a unilateral power that will come in handy the next time it is wielded by someone unpleasant.

No, I don’t think any individual in government has the dictatorial power to declare that someone has engaged in insurrection and to throw anyone who disagrees with them out of office by force.

[Takket]

14. no conviction is required but a judgement/ruling does need to be made

what i've referred to as a "civil trial" level of proof. A lower level than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" need to send someone to prison, but some sort of "level" nonetheless.

[getagrip_already]

21. Nope, no ruling either....

Just a determination.

Here is the full text:

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.

It specifically does not raise a requirement of a trial, or law, or conviction. Just that they engaged in the act.

[Takket]

23. The Georgia Secretary of state just determined Joe Biden participated in an insurrection

and disqualified him from being on the 2024 ballot.

^^^See why your interpretation of the 14th does not work? A judgement of some kind is implied. Not a conviction, but a judgement that insurrection took place. Someone has to actually go to a court and say "look, this is an insurrection, see my proof? And this person was there. Disqualify them under the 14th".

[getagrip_already]

26. He could....

And bidens lawyers would have it reversed.

And scotus would agree because it could not be shown to have occurred.

Tfg on the other hand, has the output of the Jan 6 congressional committee, the grand jury for Jack smith's indictments, and multiplec state investigstions including ga.

But I'm not a constitutional scholar.

But Lawrence tribe is. So are the two federal society founders who wrote a 150 page paper on why tfg is dqd by the 14th.

I'm nobody, but they aren't. Scotus will listen very carefully to them.

And they say the dq is automatic. No conviction or ruling required. I put weight in expert opinion.

[3825-87867]

30. Violation of the 14th Amendment is not even a crime

No where does it say someone broke the 14th amendment just on word of mouth. But at the same time, video or found written evidence, while not even used in a court of law is enough to show you broke a law with only one penalty.

It's simply a law that states what happens if you engage in an insurrection. Doesn't say you're going to jail or even be arrested or even can be arrested. It just says simpy that if you were there, you can't hold office again. And if you're not a government official, you may not even be charged. But as an official, ignorance is no excuse, you know that and you broke a law that won't necessarily put you in prison. How's that grab ya?

And nowhere does the amendment say you lose your job at an insurrection because someone said so or you'll go to jail. The sticking point is the idea that due process is required. You don't have to be arrested or criminally tried. You just have to have been there and engaged which you know isn't allowed.

Videos and statements that aren't used in criminal cases can show people and officials involved in an insurrection. Even if they haven't been arrested, even if a court of law doesn't arrest or try them is beside the point. By that law, the amendment states anyone engaged can not hold office. That's all.

If Biden was seen at an insurrection or later visual or audio info shows he was engaged, he will lose his job. And he didn't have to be arrested or held or even later charged with a different crime. Just that he was engaged in an insurrection. Not a crime as it's not stated that way. But he had to be seen there, Doesn't have to be sworn to in court. Probable cause would need visuals. The evidence doesn't even have to be used in court. Just something that shows he was there violates the amendment. Didn't see him there? He can't lose his job. But if you have video proof, better make damn sure it's legit or then YOU have broken the law.

Biden will be shown to not have done that. Neither will Romney nor Cheney nor Gore. None will lose their jobs nor go to jail because no one saw or recorded them there. IF simply there is video of them there, them they violated the law. The insurrectionists are automatically guilty of violating the 14th amendment. Whether a court finds them guilty of other crimes is a moot point. The law is specific. Engage in insurrection and lose a Government job. Don't even need a trial. Just real video will do.

Not sure how it could be simpler.

[ecstatic]

15. Great, straight to the point post. nt

[elocs]

18. Remove "them" by force if necessary, not by law? Who exactly is "them"?

I've always thought that the Constitution is interpreted and says what the sitting Supreme Court interprets it as saying. If you don't like their ruling, what higher court do you go for appeal? None. Is that where the force comes in?

Damn! It would have been nice in '16 if those on the Left in the swing states could have sucked it up and just voted for Hillary. Then this would all just be a chapter in an alternate reality novel.

[3825-87867]

22. Some J6 insurrectionists

who didn't attack anyone had been arrested and jailed simply for being in the Capitol when they should not have been. They knew they were not allowed there but went anyway and were detained then or found and detained later. While many were charged and simply given a minor offense, they were legally allowed to be removed because the law is specific - you can't be there if it's not allowed. Ignorance of the law or whatever.

If an officer of the U.S. isn't allowed, by law to do something, they may be arrested or removed and detained without warrant and if necessary, by force.

It can be fought later, legally. But in the meantime, they still may sit in confinement.

[WarGamer]

28. Irrelevant.

It depends on 9 Robes.

[3825-87867]

32. They don't have a say.

They can't change an amendment. They can't rule an amendment is illegal. They couldn't say the people involved were innocent because they believed they were. Ignorance of the law again. They can't even change an amendment without a long, involved process. They can only uphold the amendement until it goes to a lower court which really shouldn't be involved in Constitutional matters and even then, they can't legally enforce it. Only congress or state courts can do that. That may take some time. Meanwhile, officials are out of a job.

The only thing they could do would be to rule the perps were somehow innocent but that would still violate the amendment. SO, I imagine, if they're smart(!?) they'll defer any possible action. Of course, I'm not putting it past one like Alito to find some ancient Egyptian law implying videos used after the 1600s was illegal.

[WarGamer]

35. Of course they can...

They are the final say on what the Constitution says or means...

People need to stop dreaming of ways to hide from Trump and focus on GOTV and beating him fair and square AGAIN like in 20.

[Disaffected]

33. May I suggest that the 14th amendment

is written as poorly as the 2nd. There is simple too much ambiguity for both to be applied in any rigorous and just fashion.

In the case of the 14th, surely there must be some form of due process to determine if in fact a person did engage in the disqualifying activities specified therein. Absent that, the process becomes arbitrary and open to all sorts of abuse and injustice.

WHO DECIDES?? The 14th does not address that crucial issue at all.

[3825-87867]

34. You're absolutely right

In fact, it's not even a crime, just a job lost.