(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



How does the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban” NOT apply to presidents [1]

['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']

Date: 2023-11-17

Raiders of the lost amendment: Give me the idol and I’ll throw you the whip.

A district court judge rejected a request from a group of voters to declare former President Donald J. Trump ineligible to hold office on the basis that he “engaged in insurrection.”

OTOH, The Colorado State District Court, Judge Sarah B. Wallace, held tonight that the former president “engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect [his] speech."

Is there one state-level jurist who has the guts to address Judge Luttig’s position. An appeal will be filed. The Colorado court did not order him removed from the ballot, however, finding that the president is not an officer of the United States and so not subject to the 14th amendment's disqualification clause.

Judge Luttig weighs in on why POTUS is not a US office(r)?

x The Colorado State District Court, Judge Sarah B. Wallace, held tonight that the former president “engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect [his] speech." The court also held that he — @judgeluttig (@judgeluttig) November 18, 2023 "acted with the specific intent to disrupt the Electoral College certification of President Biden’s electoral victory through unlawful means." The court thus found as both fact and law the preconditions to the former president's disqualification under Section 3. But then, accepting wholesale the former president’s tortured constitutional arguments, the court held that the Presidency of the United States is not an “office under the United States” and that the former president was not an "officer of the United States" and did not take an oath to “support the Constitution of the United States” in 2016 when he took the presidential oath in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8, to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." It is unfathomable as a matter of constitutional interpretation that the Presidency of the United States is not an “office under the United States.” It is even more constitutionally unfathomable, if that's possible, that the former president did not take an oath “to support the Constitution of the United States” within the meaning of Section 3 when he took took the presidential oath “to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The Constitution is not a suicide pact with America's democracy. Indeed, it is the very contrary in this instance. It is plain that the entire purpose of Section 3, confirmed by its literal text, is to disqualify any person who, having taken an oath to support the Constitution, engages in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution. The former president did exactly that when he attempted to overturn the 2020 election and remain in office in rebellious violation of the Constitution's Executive Vesting Clause, which prescribes the four-year term of the presidency. x Professor Tribe and I will join @AliVelshi to discuss the Colorado court's opinion tomorrow morning on @VelshiMSNBC.https://t.co/ubystJ4e1u — @judgeluttig (@judgeluttig) November 18, 2023

x BREAKING: My preliminary reading is that the Colorado court found that Trump DID incite the insurrection, but that the president as an officer of the United States under section 3 of the 14th Amendment, so he will be on the ballot. pic.twitter.com/zNF46BHaKA — Mueller, She Wrote (@MuellerSheWrote) November 18, 2023

x HAPPENING NOW: Trump’s attorney in Colorado 14th amendment case says the far right’s relationship with Trump is like “unrequited” love, like a “stalker and his victim,” like John Hinckley Jr. vs Jodi Foster and like Jim Carrey’s character in ‘Dumb and Dumber’ vs his love interest — Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) November 16, 2023

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/11/17/2206584/-Raiders-of-the-lost-amendment-Judge-Luttig-weighs-in-on-why-POTUS-is-not-a-US-office?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=more_community&pm_medium=web

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/