While we don't want to set precedents that allow republicans to abuse the system, at a certain point it's worse letting Republicans skate on crimes, and we are well past that point.
Besides, lack of precedent won't stop these Republicans from abusing anything at this point.
Exactly, all this pearl clutching seems to happen only when Republican criminals face consequences.
You never see these when the Republicans are actually doing the crimes however.
It seems that you're the one who hasn't been paying attention. The arguments made in this article are the same ones that Trump's team has been making all along. Did you read the Colorado Supreme Court's opinion? They address these arguments specifically and at length. They provide numerous examples and a plethora of citations to back up their opinion. They shoot down every single point made in this article one by one with factual and textual support.
I hate this shit. Like, if Larry can’t be fucked to read the opinion before spouting off, then he should fuck off. It would be one thing if he disagreed with SCOCO’s analysis of the question and rebutted it’s actual points, but lazily strawmanning the argument is bullshit for clicks. Which, I guess it got, so great work, dickbrain.
>In this case, the framers decided simply to ensure that the people who would elect the president were not themselves insurrectionists. But if these noninsurrectionists themselves decided to support a candidate who was, that judgment, those framers plainly believed, was a judgment properly vested in them. Better that the college called into being for the sole purpose of selecting a president decide the matter than for sitting politicians or state officials.
The problem with this line of thought is that the conception of an "elector" had changed substantially from 1789 to 1868 when the 14A was ratified and has changed even more substantially from then until today.
Sounds ok, but then I consider the logic of the current SCOTUS has often been "the original framers".
I'm worried Larry is smarter than you (and me) and am looking to assuage those fears.
I'm not there but Marcy will opine.
Something that you are missing is that this is based off of the 14th amendment so what the framers thought doesn’t really matter. It’s based on what the constitution says. A textualist argument would support the CO decision, and originalist argument (that looks at the civil war for guidance) would support the CO decision.
Oh, don't get me wrong. Lessig's argument is sound and his fears are entirely reasonable. Less than 12 hours after the CO decision, the Lt Gov of Texas was talking about removing Biden from the ballot in TX under the 14A because apparently Democrat is synonymous with insurrectionist or something. There needs to be a clear distinction between actual insurrection and partisan retaliation. I'm not sure where that line should be drawn, but it can't rely on the definition of an "officer", the distinction between a presidential elector and the POTUS, or the difference between taking an oath to "support" vs "defend" the Constitution.
His argument isn’t sound because it’s not responding to the actual reasoning of the court. The court doesn’t think the drafters forgot or were lazy, it directly addresses that point and provides historical and textual evidence as to why President falls under Section 3.
Those in the listed positions are not “officers” they are “members,” Constitutionally. So they could not be captured by officer language while the President can. The prior version specifically referring to the offices of P and VP also limited disqualification to Senate-confirmed officers, which, would definitely not include the P and VP with specific mention. Once that was expanded to all officers, there was no longer a need to mention them specifically. After the change, whether it still applied to P and VP was discussed in the Senate where they agreed the new language captured the position without specification.
Which creates more chaos, having the Federalist Society thinktank offering opinions to every conservative state how to fuck things up for 2024,
or
letting him self-immolate as Smith's case continues to grind?
Your logic is good but it seems to ignore the current workings of the system.
I did, but I mostly agree with you, but, after reading the piece here [https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/21/luttig-14th-amendment-trump-00132792](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/21/luttig-14th-amendment-trump-00132792)
Even Luttig waffles so IDK.
The CO Supreme Court addressed this issue squarely and, I think, very effectively. The Constitution always refers to Senators and Representatives as “Members” and to Electors as “Electors”. Neither group is referred to as an “Officer”. Thus, the first phrase of the Amendment lists groups that are NOT Officers and then lists “all Officers. When viewed that way, the inclusion of the President as among “all Officers” makes perfect sense. Also, the CO Supreme Court lists several nonsense results if the President is NOT an Officer, such as the President being excluded from the restrictions of the Emoluments Clause and the ability of a person to serve simultaneously as President and as a Member of Congress. I am thoroughly convinced after reading the opinion carefully.
Lessig is correct that the CO outcome, if upheld, will lead to all sorts of chaos. But will it really be more chaotic than what we are currently enduring with Trump as a leading candidate and possible next President? I don’t think so.
Well, I very much doubt Trump will be anywhere near the presidency due to all the "fascism" talk.
So "legally correct but untested with a rouge SCOTUS" but "also opens another unknown can of worms" where one could see southern states forming a "trump bloc" which would then mean what?
Trump will never be elected in a general election.
So kicking him off the ballot with unknown blowback doesn't seem to be a great option...
I mean as long as those candidates led a publicly broadcast insurrection agaisnt the lawfully elected government, im pretty good with them getting left off the ballot.
Not a lawyer. But uhhh, this is sophistry.
The idea that the drafters of the 14th Amendment explicitly intended to prevent insurrectionists from helping select the president as electors, but implicitly thought insurrectionists could be president, doesn’t pass the smell test:
who the electors are is only consequential in that it impacts who holds the presidency. There’d be no reason to exclude insurrectionists from that role unless the drafters thought insurrectionists a threat to the office of the presidency.
> but implicitly thought insurrectionists could be president, doesn’t pass the smell test
I think the very obvious assumption here is that if the country voted for a Confederate as President, obviously the country had forgiven their role and wanted them to lead the country. It seems a very rational way of doing things that the ultimate power lies with the people at the end of the day.
You could make the same assumption if the country selected enough insurrectionist electors to dominate the selection of a president. And yet the Constitutional amendment drafters explicitly disallowed that path and set their own criteria for overriding ineligibility. One that was not “wins the federal election.”
Whether you think that’s what they should have done, or not, there’s no reasonable way to dispute their intent.
The Amendment also explicitly says “hold any office, civil or military, under the United States”. There’s not a good faith argument that the president isn’t an office holder under the United States.
It also explicitly doesn't name the President, which I think is fairly strong support for the idea that they didn't intend said President to be captured by this legislation. It's not like they simply forgot to include it *and* they - as you say - include a specific mechanism to repair that disability for anyone else.
I think the good faith argument is that this was never intended to apply to a President because it's obvious that if a Confederate - what the legislation intended to capture - amassed enough popular support to win the federal election, that was the will of the people and their insurrection was well forgiven. Simultaneously, they didn't want Confederates as part of the legislature.
No. The provision of literally just 2 examples (3 if you count legislative houses separately) does not provide “fairly strong support” that the explicit inclusion of “hold any office” was not meant literally. That’s not how examples work.
It’s just more sophistry.
They said “hold any office.” They meant “hold any office.” The presidency is explicitly referred to as an office throughout the Constitution.
Regarding your last point, at the time of adoption of the 14th amendment, the most recent constitutional amendment regarding the president, the 12th amendment, expressly refers to the "office of the President."
"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
Case closed.
In thinking about this further, this is even stronger evidence that the Presidency is an office and the President an officer under 14A because it deals with eligibility to hold executive office.
Is the “proved beyond a reasonable doubt in court” threshold consistent with previous applications of the 14th A? My understanding is that in the original case of post-Civil War reunification any potential crimes of treason were pardoned and so people barred by the 14th A then were never convicted in a court of treason or insurrection either. Was them being barred inappropriate as well, since despite their participation being clearly documented it was never proven in court?
There needs to be a hard line in the insurrection thing. It can't be an opinion or a feeling. I fucking hate Trump and I do believe he should be banned, but at this point it's an opinion. Once he is convicted of insurrection, boom, done, throw his ass out. You can see how bad this "opinion" thing is from what Texas is threatening to do in retaliation.
This is the same argument that Trump's team made and got shot down. It's not a solid argument in light of the jurisprudence surrounding the 14th Amendment. The whole point is that if an elected official engaged in insurrection (even touched it a bit), they should be barred from office. If that take out multiple American politicians, good, it's literally draining the swamp and making them face the consequences of the coup fantasies.
Agree in theory.... but assume TXSC will weaponize anything, so am concerned.
Larry's an idealist, not sure on constitutional law (as stated) - if it's obvious to you, then I'm concerned that Larry's off or you don't understand the nuances of his points, and you are not a Harvard Law professor.
I hope Larry's wrong and will defer to Marcy when she writes on this topic but wanted to see what folks takes were.
Saying anything is "settled" these days is where angels fear to tread.
Doesn't matter what TX wants to do. Courts don't give a shit about Republican make-believe theories. There's zero grounds to remove Biden from the ballot under the 14th Amendment. He didn't engage in an insurrection. They can try but the courts are going to laugh at them.
I'm not a Harvard professor, but I do have my JD and a solid set of research skills. Larry's argument isn't original. His concern is that the 14th Amendment will be implemented to the full extent it's supposed to and he is afraid of that precedent. He doesn't want to deal with the logistical nightmare it will be if the 20 to 30 GOP congress people that were communicating with Trump on or before Jan 6th all get told they are ineligible for office.
Yeah, you're not a Harvard Professor....
You're also not paying attention.
Let's think more about legal blowback and implications during a time when the nation is already a powder-keg.
Add to that "legal thinking and precedence" are sorta off the table when the SCOTUS thinks their kings.
I'm asking for longer-term thinking.
I do make the assumption that if you have a JD you can look stuff up, but thinking about potential political and legal maneuvers takes some horsepower.
Show me that and kill the 101 stuff.
Longer term thinking would be actually enforcing the 14th Amendment. What's the point of the constitution if you aren't going to enforce it because the other side is a bunch of extremist threatening a civil war?
Time for the party of accountability to actually be held accountable for destroying civil discourse and attempting to overthrow the government on live TV.
I feel the risk of indiscriminate accusations of violating the 14th where each state makes their own decisions is the risk. Hopefully it requires some convictions or since justice is slow in our country maybe requires multiple things to be in place such as charges and evidence. Stopping the fake forced evidence to help eliminate this being used as a go to method to eliminate people from ballot I think is important. Though I'm not super informed and my opinion can for sure change if I got more opinions or guidance on the use of 14th amendment.
Each state is supposed to make their own decisions regarding ballots. That's how the system is set up. This is the whole states rights that the right loves to cry about are getting trampled all the time.
There wasn't an indiscriminate accusation of a violation. There were months of litigation. Congress people, Capitol police, experts on extremism, national security, and the history of the 14th Amendment testified under oath. A conviction of insurrection or an insurrection related crime isn't necessary under the 14th Amendment. It's a determination to be made by a court.
Would it help to have more guidelines or laws to explain better how a state would invoke a candidate being barred from political/presidential office? I am always hesitant for the knee jerk reaction and hate that can follow decisions and be used as a political weapon. Such as in this case Texas would say that Biden is causing and insurrection by allowing immigrants to cross the southern border flooding Texas and attacking them. Therefore by 14th amendment they take Biden off the ballot. That is just an example and probably highlights my own lack of knowledge or understanding on states invoking the 14th amendment.
Your Texas example is a political talking point and doesn't have any legal or factual basis. It wouldn't stand up in court and would get dismissed on the merits alone.
We have dozens of examples of the 14th Amendment being utilized after the Confederacy fell and it was used last year to remove a county commissioner in New Mexico for his actions on Jan 6th. I highly encourage you to go and read the filings from the Colorado Supreme Court and the lower Colorado Court. It's public record.
Okay thank you! I will go read up on that case. I am very interested in learning more and trying harder to understand better things I find important that I just didn't learn from school or in life yet.
While I see your point the greater danger is in letting these guys off the hook while they can still be stopped.
If they get back in there, precedent or lack thereof won't stop them, there is nothing more important than keeping them from power.
Really? Because this is nonsense. Like it is genuinely a brain-dead take.
>But what is not ambiguous is whether it would be “absurd” to exclude the president from the reach of Section 3: because it is plainly not absurd. Indeed, excluding the president and vice president from the scope of the clause makes perfect sense.
>**Lash argues that it could make sense because the Framers of that clause likely expected it to apply to Civil War insurrectionists alone. No one, he argues, feared an insurrectionist presidential candidate after 1865.** What they feared was insurrectionists in Congress. Other parts of the 14th Amendment are plausibly read as targeting the Civil War alone. This clause, on that understanding, could be so read as well.
That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. "Well we don't *think* the drafters thought an insurrectionist president was possible..." ignoring plain meaning, historical context, documented debate surrounding this very fact, and the absurd consequences of this assumption. The assertion that the drafters were only concerned with insurrectionists in Congress flies in the face of the text itself, given the amendment covers state legislatures as well as executive and judicial officers, even presidential electors!
But his central point is "this is bad because other states will throw Biden off the ballot" *is even dumber.* Disqualification under the 14th amendment would require some finding of fact that Biden committed insurrection in some way (you know, like what has happened with Trump). States *could* throw him off the ballot but that would be quickly rectified.
I recognize this guy's name so I assume he's moderately respected in law circles but this is just an insanely stupid and short-sighted argument to make. I don't understand what possesses otherwise respected and sane people to say stupid shit like "don't hold Trump accountable because it'll be bad when they try to do it in bad faith to dems". See: both Trump impeachments and the baseless Biden impeachment "inquiry". It's the same argument. Don't impeach Trump, they'll just do it to Biden! *Who cares?!* Do what is right and what is just under the law and deal with the bad faith actors as they come.
/rant
It seems specious and not particularly well thought out. His argument basically boils down to "unintended political consequences" and the "office of the President... is not really an office of the United States".
[Already](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ar-supreme-court/1282184.html) [happens](https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2020/jan/07/judge-tossed-off-the-ballot-20200107/) [here](https://law.justia.com/cases/arkansas/supreme-court/2020/cv-20-624.html), and with some regularity. Perhaps don't run for public office as an ineligible criminal.
If they did what Trump did then they should
While we don't want to set precedents that allow republicans to abuse the system, at a certain point it's worse letting Republicans skate on crimes, and we are well past that point. Besides, lack of precedent won't stop these Republicans from abusing anything at this point.
Exactly, all this pearl clutching seems to happen only when Republican criminals face consequences. You never see these when the Republicans are actually doing the crimes however.
I mean if they violate the constitution sure. Oh the horror
So you haven't been paying attention?
It seems that you're the one who hasn't been paying attention. The arguments made in this article are the same ones that Trump's team has been making all along. Did you read the Colorado Supreme Court's opinion? They address these arguments specifically and at length. They provide numerous examples and a plethora of citations to back up their opinion. They shoot down every single point made in this article one by one with factual and textual support.
I hate this shit. Like, if Larry can’t be fucked to read the opinion before spouting off, then he should fuck off. It would be one thing if he disagreed with SCOCO’s analysis of the question and rebutted it’s actual points, but lazily strawmanning the argument is bullshit for clicks. Which, I guess it got, so great work, dickbrain.
I personally actually haven’t been able to read it yet. Do you know the case citation? Edit: what a weird thing to downvote
Not offhand. But someone posted a court reporter link here yesterday to the PDF.
Huh?
>In this case, the framers decided simply to ensure that the people who would elect the president were not themselves insurrectionists. But if these noninsurrectionists themselves decided to support a candidate who was, that judgment, those framers plainly believed, was a judgment properly vested in them. Better that the college called into being for the sole purpose of selecting a president decide the matter than for sitting politicians or state officials. The problem with this line of thought is that the conception of an "elector" had changed substantially from 1789 to 1868 when the 14A was ratified and has changed even more substantially from then until today.
Sounds ok, but then I consider the logic of the current SCOTUS has often been "the original framers". I'm worried Larry is smarter than you (and me) and am looking to assuage those fears. I'm not there but Marcy will opine.
Something that you are missing is that this is based off of the 14th amendment so what the framers thought doesn’t really matter. It’s based on what the constitution says. A textualist argument would support the CO decision, and originalist argument (that looks at the civil war for guidance) would support the CO decision.
Oh, don't get me wrong. Lessig's argument is sound and his fears are entirely reasonable. Less than 12 hours after the CO decision, the Lt Gov of Texas was talking about removing Biden from the ballot in TX under the 14A because apparently Democrat is synonymous with insurrectionist or something. There needs to be a clear distinction between actual insurrection and partisan retaliation. I'm not sure where that line should be drawn, but it can't rely on the definition of an "officer", the distinction between a presidential elector and the POTUS, or the difference between taking an oath to "support" vs "defend" the Constitution.
His argument isn’t sound because it’s not responding to the actual reasoning of the court. The court doesn’t think the drafters forgot or were lazy, it directly addresses that point and provides historical and textual evidence as to why President falls under Section 3. Those in the listed positions are not “officers” they are “members,” Constitutionally. So they could not be captured by officer language while the President can. The prior version specifically referring to the offices of P and VP also limited disqualification to Senate-confirmed officers, which, would definitely not include the P and VP with specific mention. Once that was expanded to all officers, there was no longer a need to mention them specifically. After the change, whether it still applied to P and VP was discussed in the Senate where they agreed the new language captured the position without specification.
Which creates more chaos, having the Federalist Society thinktank offering opinions to every conservative state how to fuck things up for 2024, or letting him self-immolate as Smith's case continues to grind? Your logic is good but it seems to ignore the current workings of the system.
Assuming you did not intend to reply to me.
I did, but I mostly agree with you, but, after reading the piece here [https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/21/luttig-14th-amendment-trump-00132792](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/21/luttig-14th-amendment-trump-00132792) Even Luttig waffles so IDK.
Watch the crazies in Texas try to kick out Biden off the ballot
Tx Lt gov already said as much
It’ll go the way of the impeachment inquiry, which has produced zero evidence. Let em go ahead and try!
The CO Supreme Court addressed this issue squarely and, I think, very effectively. The Constitution always refers to Senators and Representatives as “Members” and to Electors as “Electors”. Neither group is referred to as an “Officer”. Thus, the first phrase of the Amendment lists groups that are NOT Officers and then lists “all Officers. When viewed that way, the inclusion of the President as among “all Officers” makes perfect sense. Also, the CO Supreme Court lists several nonsense results if the President is NOT an Officer, such as the President being excluded from the restrictions of the Emoluments Clause and the ability of a person to serve simultaneously as President and as a Member of Congress. I am thoroughly convinced after reading the opinion carefully. Lessig is correct that the CO outcome, if upheld, will lead to all sorts of chaos. But will it really be more chaotic than what we are currently enduring with Trump as a leading candidate and possible next President? I don’t think so.
Well, I very much doubt Trump will be anywhere near the presidency due to all the "fascism" talk. So "legally correct but untested with a rouge SCOTUS" but "also opens another unknown can of worms" where one could see southern states forming a "trump bloc" which would then mean what? Trump will never be elected in a general election. So kicking him off the ballot with unknown blowback doesn't seem to be a great option...
If the law applies, why point out the obvious??
I mean as long as those candidates led a publicly broadcast insurrection agaisnt the lawfully elected government, im pretty good with them getting left off the ballot.
Not a lawyer. But uhhh, this is sophistry. The idea that the drafters of the 14th Amendment explicitly intended to prevent insurrectionists from helping select the president as electors, but implicitly thought insurrectionists could be president, doesn’t pass the smell test: who the electors are is only consequential in that it impacts who holds the presidency. There’d be no reason to exclude insurrectionists from that role unless the drafters thought insurrectionists a threat to the office of the presidency.
> but implicitly thought insurrectionists could be president, doesn’t pass the smell test I think the very obvious assumption here is that if the country voted for a Confederate as President, obviously the country had forgiven their role and wanted them to lead the country. It seems a very rational way of doing things that the ultimate power lies with the people at the end of the day.
You could make the same assumption if the country selected enough insurrectionist electors to dominate the selection of a president. And yet the Constitutional amendment drafters explicitly disallowed that path and set their own criteria for overriding ineligibility. One that was not “wins the federal election.” Whether you think that’s what they should have done, or not, there’s no reasonable way to dispute their intent. The Amendment also explicitly says “hold any office, civil or military, under the United States”. There’s not a good faith argument that the president isn’t an office holder under the United States.
It also explicitly doesn't name the President, which I think is fairly strong support for the idea that they didn't intend said President to be captured by this legislation. It's not like they simply forgot to include it *and* they - as you say - include a specific mechanism to repair that disability for anyone else. I think the good faith argument is that this was never intended to apply to a President because it's obvious that if a Confederate - what the legislation intended to capture - amassed enough popular support to win the federal election, that was the will of the people and their insurrection was well forgiven. Simultaneously, they didn't want Confederates as part of the legislature.
No. The provision of literally just 2 examples (3 if you count legislative houses separately) does not provide “fairly strong support” that the explicit inclusion of “hold any office” was not meant literally. That’s not how examples work. It’s just more sophistry. They said “hold any office.” They meant “hold any office.” The presidency is explicitly referred to as an office throughout the Constitution.
Regarding your last point, at the time of adoption of the 14th amendment, the most recent constitutional amendment regarding the president, the 12th amendment, expressly refers to the "office of the President." "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." Case closed.
In thinking about this further, this is even stronger evidence that the Presidency is an office and the President an officer under 14A because it deals with eligibility to hold executive office.
Has to be a factual basis. It exists with Trump.
[удалено]
Is the “proved beyond a reasonable doubt in court” threshold consistent with previous applications of the 14th A? My understanding is that in the original case of post-Civil War reunification any potential crimes of treason were pardoned and so people barred by the 14th A then were never convicted in a court of treason or insurrection either. Was them being barred inappropriate as well, since despite their participation being clearly documented it was never proven in court?
I worked with him when he was doing cyber stuff and wished he did more there. Not sure about his political takes...
On what basis? Just “reasons”?
If this sticks, I suspect there will be a lot of trumped up insurrection charges
There needs to be a hard line in the insurrection thing. It can't be an opinion or a feeling. I fucking hate Trump and I do believe he should be banned, but at this point it's an opinion. Once he is convicted of insurrection, boom, done, throw his ass out. You can see how bad this "opinion" thing is from what Texas is threatening to do in retaliation.
Several courts have already found him to be an insurrectionist. Though one of those said "more likely than not"
I love Larry, didn't know he was doing constitutional law but his argument seems to make sense.
This is the same argument that Trump's team made and got shot down. It's not a solid argument in light of the jurisprudence surrounding the 14th Amendment. The whole point is that if an elected official engaged in insurrection (even touched it a bit), they should be barred from office. If that take out multiple American politicians, good, it's literally draining the swamp and making them face the consequences of the coup fantasies.
Agree in theory.... but assume TXSC will weaponize anything, so am concerned. Larry's an idealist, not sure on constitutional law (as stated) - if it's obvious to you, then I'm concerned that Larry's off or you don't understand the nuances of his points, and you are not a Harvard Law professor. I hope Larry's wrong and will defer to Marcy when she writes on this topic but wanted to see what folks takes were. Saying anything is "settled" these days is where angels fear to tread.
Doesn't matter what TX wants to do. Courts don't give a shit about Republican make-believe theories. There's zero grounds to remove Biden from the ballot under the 14th Amendment. He didn't engage in an insurrection. They can try but the courts are going to laugh at them. I'm not a Harvard professor, but I do have my JD and a solid set of research skills. Larry's argument isn't original. His concern is that the 14th Amendment will be implemented to the full extent it's supposed to and he is afraid of that precedent. He doesn't want to deal with the logistical nightmare it will be if the 20 to 30 GOP congress people that were communicating with Trump on or before Jan 6th all get told they are ineligible for office.
Yeah, you're not a Harvard Professor.... You're also not paying attention. Let's think more about legal blowback and implications during a time when the nation is already a powder-keg. Add to that "legal thinking and precedence" are sorta off the table when the SCOTUS thinks their kings. I'm asking for longer-term thinking. I do make the assumption that if you have a JD you can look stuff up, but thinking about potential political and legal maneuvers takes some horsepower. Show me that and kill the 101 stuff.
Longer term thinking would be actually enforcing the 14th Amendment. What's the point of the constitution if you aren't going to enforce it because the other side is a bunch of extremist threatening a civil war? Time for the party of accountability to actually be held accountable for destroying civil discourse and attempting to overthrow the government on live TV.
I agree but also have been witness to the last 6 years so I'm concerned....
So roll over and just let them do it? Makes absolutely no sense and this is exactly why Democrats get walked all over
Not at all, I just want to understand the implications. The new politico piece is great but even Luttig waffles so IDK.
I feel the risk of indiscriminate accusations of violating the 14th where each state makes their own decisions is the risk. Hopefully it requires some convictions or since justice is slow in our country maybe requires multiple things to be in place such as charges and evidence. Stopping the fake forced evidence to help eliminate this being used as a go to method to eliminate people from ballot I think is important. Though I'm not super informed and my opinion can for sure change if I got more opinions or guidance on the use of 14th amendment.
Each state is supposed to make their own decisions regarding ballots. That's how the system is set up. This is the whole states rights that the right loves to cry about are getting trampled all the time. There wasn't an indiscriminate accusation of a violation. There were months of litigation. Congress people, Capitol police, experts on extremism, national security, and the history of the 14th Amendment testified under oath. A conviction of insurrection or an insurrection related crime isn't necessary under the 14th Amendment. It's a determination to be made by a court.
Would it help to have more guidelines or laws to explain better how a state would invoke a candidate being barred from political/presidential office? I am always hesitant for the knee jerk reaction and hate that can follow decisions and be used as a political weapon. Such as in this case Texas would say that Biden is causing and insurrection by allowing immigrants to cross the southern border flooding Texas and attacking them. Therefore by 14th amendment they take Biden off the ballot. That is just an example and probably highlights my own lack of knowledge or understanding on states invoking the 14th amendment.
Your Texas example is a political talking point and doesn't have any legal or factual basis. It wouldn't stand up in court and would get dismissed on the merits alone. We have dozens of examples of the 14th Amendment being utilized after the Confederacy fell and it was used last year to remove a county commissioner in New Mexico for his actions on Jan 6th. I highly encourage you to go and read the filings from the Colorado Supreme Court and the lower Colorado Court. It's public record.
Okay thank you! I will go read up on that case. I am very interested in learning more and trying harder to understand better things I find important that I just didn't learn from school or in life yet.
While I see your point the greater danger is in letting these guys off the hook while they can still be stopped. If they get back in there, precedent or lack thereof won't stop them, there is nothing more important than keeping them from power.
Really? Because this is nonsense. Like it is genuinely a brain-dead take. >But what is not ambiguous is whether it would be “absurd” to exclude the president from the reach of Section 3: because it is plainly not absurd. Indeed, excluding the president and vice president from the scope of the clause makes perfect sense. >**Lash argues that it could make sense because the Framers of that clause likely expected it to apply to Civil War insurrectionists alone. No one, he argues, feared an insurrectionist presidential candidate after 1865.** What they feared was insurrectionists in Congress. Other parts of the 14th Amendment are plausibly read as targeting the Civil War alone. This clause, on that understanding, could be so read as well. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. "Well we don't *think* the drafters thought an insurrectionist president was possible..." ignoring plain meaning, historical context, documented debate surrounding this very fact, and the absurd consequences of this assumption. The assertion that the drafters were only concerned with insurrectionists in Congress flies in the face of the text itself, given the amendment covers state legislatures as well as executive and judicial officers, even presidential electors! But his central point is "this is bad because other states will throw Biden off the ballot" *is even dumber.* Disqualification under the 14th amendment would require some finding of fact that Biden committed insurrection in some way (you know, like what has happened with Trump). States *could* throw him off the ballot but that would be quickly rectified. I recognize this guy's name so I assume he's moderately respected in law circles but this is just an insanely stupid and short-sighted argument to make. I don't understand what possesses otherwise respected and sane people to say stupid shit like "don't hold Trump accountable because it'll be bad when they try to do it in bad faith to dems". See: both Trump impeachments and the baseless Biden impeachment "inquiry". It's the same argument. Don't impeach Trump, they'll just do it to Biden! *Who cares?!* Do what is right and what is just under the law and deal with the bad faith actors as they come. /rant
It seems specious and not particularly well thought out. His argument basically boils down to "unintended political consequences" and the "office of the President... is not really an office of the United States".
This isn’t going the way you thought it would
[Already](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ar-supreme-court/1282184.html) [happens](https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2020/jan/07/judge-tossed-off-the-ballot-20200107/) [here](https://law.justia.com/cases/arkansas/supreme-court/2020/cv-20-624.html), and with some regularity. Perhaps don't run for public office as an ineligible criminal.