(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
Trump & The 14th Amendment - Part 2: There is a Second Way [1]
['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']
Date: 2023-08-26
A few days back I did a diary on this topic (Link Here). The diary covered what (IMHO) would be needed to invoke Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution in order to disqualify Trump from being on the ballot (or more correctly ballots) in 2024. In it I agreed with the video clip below from our old friend Beau.
x YouTube Video
In the video Beau argues that there has to be a “findings of fact” to qualify or disqualify a candidate from being on each State’s ballot via the 14th amendment. In other words, the Secretaries of State (SOS) in each of the 50 States need some factual legal basis for denying an application to be on the ballot or removing someone from the ballot.
For example, in the case of the age requirement in the Constitution (a candidate for President must be at least 35 years old to be on each State’s ballot) you have the candidate’s birth certificate which each State’s SOS can use to qualify or disqualify a candidate. It’s a black and white fact supported by a legal document (the birth certificate), allowing each Secretary of State (SoS) to make an objective qualification decision.
In the case of Section 3 of the 14th amendment below,
“No Person… ...shall hold any office… ...under the United States… ...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.” we currently do not have such a clear finding of fact, leaving us in a grey area requiring each SoS to make a subjective decision as to whether Trump’s statements/actions on and leading up to J6 disqualify him from being on each State’s Presidential ballot.
In my previous diary I argued that a Trump conviction under 18 U.S.C. 2383 would provide ample justification to disqualify Trump not only under the 14th amendment, but by the statute itself which expressly states that someone found guilty under this statute cannot hold any Federal or State elected office.
But Trump is not currently charged under this statute, and there is no sign that he will be any time soon.
However, there is second way to establish a legal “finding of fact” that should be adequate to justify Trump’s disqualification from being on the Presidential ballot in each State, that I didn’t cover in my first post.
A Declaratory Ruling from a Federal Court in response to a law suit seeking to disqualify Trump under the 14th amendment based on evidence that J6 was an insurrection/rebellion and that Trump either engaged in this insurrection or gave aid or comfort to those who participated in it.
Such a ruling has already been issued for one of the J6 participants as reported by this ABC News Article:
A state judge in New Mexico has removed a county commissioner from office after ruling that -- because he participated in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol -- the U.S. Constitution barred him for engaging in an "insurrection."
A representative of the group that brought and won this law suit (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)) has stated on MSNBC’s All In with Chris Hayes that the group fully intends to file a similar law suit against Trump, at an unspecified future date, to bar him from Presidential ballots based on the 14th amendment.
When?
Who knows?
But the representative was rather empathetic that it will, not may happen. They could be waiting for a conviction from the Feds or Georgia cases, to legally link Trump to the plot. Such a conviction would certainly boost their case.
At any rate, they will first have to prove that what happened on and leading up to J6 was an “insurrection” (there seems to be ample evidence to prove that), and then either prove that Trump engaged in this insurrection or gave aid or comfort to those who participated in it (the second one also seems to be easy to prove).
Of course, any such ruling by a Federal judge would undoubtedly be appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court. Whether that could all happen before the November 2024 election or how this SCOTUS would rule is anybody’s guess.
Perhaps a subject of a future diary. We’ll see!
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/8/26/2189595/-Trump-The-14th-Amendment-Part-2-There-is-a-Second-Way
Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/
