Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
A Colorado judge has rejected an attempt to remove former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 primary ballot based on the claim that he is constitutionally barred from office because of the January 6 insurrection.
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.
I’m confused at the plain language of the 14th amendment, section 3 versus your understanding of the same. They don’t seem to match.
This is a simple case, which should not involve the courts at all. Trump is simply ineligible to hold office. Period. (FYI: Half of the Congress members are in the same boat.) However, (the legitimate) Congress members could save his bacon by voting (with two-thirds of the vote) to remove the restriction. Again, really simple language and really simple remedy, if the government would simply do their jobs and read the dang thing.
The language is unfortunately not simple enough. It uses the phrase “officer of the United States”, which some argue does not include the President. Why? Because elsewhere the Constitution refers to “officers of the United States” in a way that may exclude the President. Please note that I don’t agree with that argument.
Yes, that part is easy. Everyone agrees this includes the presidency. But your quote describes the consequences: No person shall hold any office, civil or military, if certain conditions apply.
The question is not whether the presidency is at stake. It is. The question is whether the conditions apply. Note that it does not say “if they previously held any office, civil or military …” I wish it were that simple.
But that speaks to his eligibility. Sure he can run, but he is not eligible to hold office. None of these traitors should hold office, but let’s go for the head first.
The fourteenth amendment is clear as day and I don’t understand why it’s even a court decision. Nowhere does it say the amendment should be decided by the court. The remedy is up to two-thirds of the Congress. Plain and simple.
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.
The phrasing is kind of backwards. But what this means for Trump is:
If he:
Took an oath
As an officer of the United States, and
Engaged in insurrection
then he cannot be president or hold any other office.
I’ve italicized the parts that can be summarized as 1-3.
This judge found that 1 and 3 were true, but 2 was not true because Trump was not “an officer of the United States”. That’s what I meant by hair-splitting.
I’m confused at the plain language of the 14th amendment, section 3 versus your understanding of the same. They don’t seem to match.
This is a simple case, which should not involve the courts at all. Trump is simply ineligible to hold office. Period. (FYI: Half of the Congress members are in the same boat.) However, (the legitimate) Congress members could save his bacon by voting (with two-thirds of the vote) to remove the restriction. Again, really simple language and really simple remedy, if the government would simply do their jobs and read the dang thing.
The language is unfortunately not simple enough. It uses the phrase “officer of the United States”, which some argue does not include the President. Why? Because elsewhere the Constitution refers to “officers of the United States” in a way that may exclude the President. Please note that I don’t agree with that argument.
Doesn’t seem vague to me, at all.
Yes, that part is easy. Everyone agrees this includes the presidency. But your quote describes the consequences: No person shall hold any office, civil or military, if certain conditions apply.
The question is not whether the presidency is at stake. It is. The question is whether the conditions apply. Note that it does not say “if they previously held any office, civil or military …” I wish it were that simple.
But that speaks to his eligibility. Sure he can run, but he is not eligible to hold office. None of these traitors should hold office, but let’s go for the head first.
The fourteenth amendment is clear as day and I don’t understand why it’s even a court decision. Nowhere does it say the amendment should be decided by the court. The remedy is up to two-thirds of the Congress. Plain and simple.
The phrasing is kind of backwards. But what this means for Trump is:
If he:
then he cannot be president or hold any other office.
I’ve italicized the parts that can be summarized as 1-3.
This judge found that 1 and 3 were true, but 2 was not true because Trump was not “an officer of the United States”. That’s what I meant by hair-splitting.