[tomder55]

Dems are mocking Repubs on Section 3 of the 14th amendment ;the insurrection clause.
They contend that as textualists ( focus on the plain meaning of the text) that conservatives should believe that there is nothing that says Trump needs to be charged or indicted with insurrection for the clause to be invoked. They say it is self-executing (something that goes into effect or can be enforced after being created without anything else required) .

They of course completely misunderstand conservative's position on the Constitution and the law. Conservatives are not so much textualists as originalists (text ought to be given the original meaning that it had at the time that it became law or part of the Constitution.

To understand intent is much more complex than the plain text. To understand the clause an originalist first must understand the history of the amendment.

First look at the clause as it was actually written when passed by the House of Reps .

Sec. 3. Until the 4th day of July, in the year 1870, all persons who voluntarily adhered to the late insurrection, giving it aid and comfort, shall be excluded from the right to vote for Representatives in Congress and for electors for President and Vice President of the United States

The framers of the amendment were Republicans .Their only intent at the time was to prevent former Confederates from regaining power. That was true even after the Senate amended the clause to bar former Confederates from office.
Senator Jacob Howard said
"I should prefer a clause prohibiting all persons who have participated in the rebellion, and who were over twenty-five years of age at the breaking out of the rebellion, from all participation in offices, either Federal or State, throughout the United States"

It was Howard's revisions that were ultimately adopted .


We also know from history that the intent was that it NOT be self -executing . If it were then there would not have been a need for Congress to pass any of the legislation that has it's roots in the 14th amendment . ( ie Civil Rights act of 1964 Voting Rights Act of 1965 )

[jlisenbe]

Very good analysis, Tom. I enjoy reading your posts.

[tomder55]

You gotta hand it to the Orwellian Dems . Transparency in the balloting like voter ID ,rules governing dates of voting ;ballot harvesting ;mail in ballots and registration requirements are all anti-democratic. But removing candidates from the ballot effectively denying people their choice is the essence of democracy .

The use of lawfare is just another old new twist on governing a banana republic.

[tomder55]

Applying the Dem standards ,would Evita be qualified to be on the ballot ?

She to this day says the 2016 election was stolen. During 2016 she hired a foreign agent (Christopher Steele)

Ellen L. Weintraub (@ellenlweintraub on threads) on X: "I would not have thought that I needed to say this. https://t.co/T743CsXq79" / X (twitter.com)

She illegally hid the payments to Steele

She then took his illegal dossier and used it to not only smear Trump ;but with the help of the emperor's DOJ to start a criminal investigation against him.

When that failed to stop his election she colluded with the FBI in an insurrection to undermine his Presidency.

Along with the Dems in Congress and the emperor's holdovers in the Justice Dept a special council was created that undermined and tied up his administration for more than 2 years . The special council ultimately found no collusion was done between Trump and Russia.

Further she illegally destroyed documents stored in her server . Does not matter that FBI Director James Comey unilaterally decided to not charge her. Under the standards that are being applied to keep Trump off the ballot ,a charge or conviction ; or any due process are not required for removal.

[tomder55]

Trump filed with SCOTUS yesterday ,

dfe18fa1-full.pdf (nyt.com)

Amid 34 pages of legaleze mumbo jumbo he makes some important points in his argument

From the 14th amendment "the Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." implies that sec 3 is not so called 'self executing' . It requires acts of Congress.

In this case Congress did indeed pass a law .

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

But Trump has not been either charged or convicted under this code.

Sec 3 specifically mentions Senators and Reps electors and officers Trump is the boss of the officers . But is he one ? Trump says clearly that the framers of the amendment would've named the President if they thought the law applies to the President. He points out that in other clauses of the Constitution that provisions relevent to the President names the President (the appointment clause ,the impeachment clause ,the commissions clause.) In those cases the President is named in addition to officers of the country.

In a little bit of nuance ,Trump claims the President oath to "defend" the Constitution is different than other oaths taken to "support " the Constitution .Sec 3 points to people who took the oath to support the Constitution.

He questions if the Capitol riot was an
'insurrection' as understood at the time of the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment He says it meant the taking up of arms and waging war upon the United States.

He says the Colorado Supreme Court relied solely on testimony from the Kangaroo Court to come to their conclusion.

He also says that there is nothing in the language of the amendment that would bar him from running . Therefore his name should remain on the ballot.

[tomder55]

Fetterman says it is a mistake to boot Trump from the ballot

Fetterman: Booting Trump From Ballots Only Makes Him More Popular (businessinsider.com)

[jlisenbe]

Fetterman is likely onto something. He will be completely ignored.

Gotta give him one thing. He is an interesting guy.

[tomder55]

btw if you want to know what an insurrection looks like ;see what is happening in Ecuador

Streets empty as Ecuador reels from violence (bbc.com)

Notice how the insurgents look a lot like Antifa .

Video Armed men take over TV station in Ecuador - ABC News (go.com)

Democrat Pramila Jayapal makes gaffe during House Judiciary Committee speech, says Trump incited an ‘erection’ | Fox News Video

Trump Accused Of Inciting “An Erection” | The Daily Show With Trevor Noah - YouTube

[tomder55]

Sec State of Colorado Jena Griswold submitted her bizarro Amicus to SCOTUS over
the issue of removing Trump from the ballot in the state.
20240131133707445_23-719 Griswold Repondent Brief on the Merits.pdf (supremecourt.gov)

The hearing is scheduled for February 8 I'm surprised she authored the brief instead of the AG of the state . But whatever Amicus briefs can be authored by anyone .

Throughout the brief she claims Trump is an "ineligible insurrectionist ".What comes immediately to mind is the definition of an insurrectionist . She seems to believe that anyone or a group of 2 or more who disrupts an election is committing insurrection .
The REAL definition involves the use of force or the threat of the use to overthrow a government . By Colorado's definition there have been millions of insurrections in our history .

Even if you think Trump was completely out of bounds ;his stated intent was to send the election results back to the states for recounts.

The 14th amendment was written after a 4 year bloody conflict that cost over 600,000 American lives lost .

Another question is who is covered under the insurrection clause of the 14th

The President is NOT listed as someone covered . ELECTORS for the President are .
Electors are selected at the state level . The authors did not want the states sending insurrectionists to the electoral college to decide who is President .

The argument is that the President is covered under the term "officers " . But the President is the Chief Executive . He appoints officers but is not one (see the appointments clause)

The argument that the 14th amendment is "self enforcing " is the most absurd one. The only thing in the 14th that is self enforcing is the stipulation that anyone born in the US is a US citizen. This was a final repudiation of the 'Dred Scott decision ' . Nothing else is self enforcing . The amendment makes it very clear that Congress makes the law . She is basically saying that every state can have it's own definition of who can be President. A Federal election must have uniform standards .

The only ruling SCOTUS should make is to make a ruling ;the sooner the better ; to stop states from unilaterally removing people from national ballots and that the 14th amendment is inapplicable to the political whims of state leaders .

This whole movement is one of the most destructive attempts to destroy the American election system in our history . Trump's electoral fate should only be decided at the ballot box by the people .

[jlisenbe]

You are missing the point, Tom. In this brave new world in which we live where women are men, men are women, and marriage is whatever, I am allowed to have my own truth, and if my own truth is that the 14th amendment applies to Trump, then no one can tell me otherwise. (SARC)

[Wondergirl]

In this brave new world in which we live where women are men, men are women

LGBTQ+ people have been on this earth for centuries. Here's just one of many references:

"Traditionally, Native American two-spirit people were male, female, and sometimes intersexed individuals who combined activities of both men and women with traits unique to their status as two-spirit people. In most tribes, they were considered neither men nor women; they occupied a distinct, alternative gender status."

Then, further on in the article:

"Today, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender native people throughout North America are reviving the two-spirit role and its traditions. National gatherings of two-spirit people have been held since the early 1990s, and regional gatherings are held in many parts of the country."

https://www.ihs.gov/lgbt/health/twos...ender%20status.

For more sources, google Berdache.

[Curlyben]

LGBTQ+ people have been on this earth for centuries. Here's just one of many references:
Blah, blah blah.

Please lets not start all of this again and stick to the topic in hand.
Not something I ever thought I'd say to you.....

[Wondergirl]

Please lets not start all of this again and stick to the topic in hand.
Not something I ever thought I'd say to you.....

Please mention that to jlisenbe too. He started it. He loves to drop tempting treats behind him on the trail.

[tomder55]

yes please don't turn this into another transformer posting . This topic is much too important . If the states get away with this our Federal system will be destroyed .

[jlisenbe]

I was completely on-topic by drawing a comparison.

If allowed to stand, the antics of these states will further erode confidence in our electoral process.

[Wondergirl]

yes please don't turn this into another transformer posting . This topic is much too important . If the states get away with this our Federal system will be destroyed .

If tRump is elected, our Federal system will definitely be destroyed. He's already indicated he wants to be the Putin person in this country.

[tomder55]

He said he would be dictator for one day in his tongue in cheek reply. And all he spoke about was reversing the executive orders that Clueless Joe made on his first day in office; that reversed Trump's executive orders that he made on his first day in office; that reversed the executive orders of the emperor.

The Federal system will be destroyed if SCOTUS does not put a stop to the notion that states can exclude national candidates from a national election. The Dems would be equally outraged if red states were attempting to keep their candidate from the ballot.

Here's the dirty little not so secret about the Dem and deep state agenda....... they hate the Federal system; and have for more than a century been working to destroy it. Their expansion of the national leviathan state; especially at the executive bureaucratic level, has already significantly eroded powers guaranteed in the Constitution to the people at the state and local levels. Instead of the people voting on issues of reform it is imposed on them by the group think concentrated in DC.

The progressives have always seen the 14th amendment as the means to destroy a system created by those evil constitution framers. All they had to do is dig deeper into those hidden mysterious “penumbras” and “emanations". Due process; privileges; immunities; equal protection, property rights, could be granted or taken away as needed.

[jlisenbe]

He's already indicated he wants to be the Putin person in this country.

A thoroughly non-serious reply. Even a brief review of his statement would have demonstrated that. It all illustrates the fact that the tendency of people is to first make up their minds, and then look for whatever "evidence" can be found to support that conclusion.

Liberal dems support what these states are doing because they believe it will damage Trump's reelection chances, oblivious to the idea that what goes around comes around. The time is coming when the shoe could very well be on the other foot. (Yes...too many idioms.) They should consider that destroying the credibility of the voting process is a significant step forward towards the adoption of an autocracy. We are already approaching that as we edge ever closer to an oligarchy. Sadly, in the minds of many, that is all just hunky dory as long as it frustrates the chances of a Trump presidency.

[Wondergirl]

One of the Oklahoma lawmakers was on TV saying that non-Christians will be blessed by being oppressed by Christians. That they crave subjugation. He let it slip that Christian nationalism can't be stopped now. It will be implemented.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=WV1SlHdz...CXpk-xYXVocqJw

[jlisenbe]

Perhaps you could point out where he said anything about Christians oppressing people, or where he said that Christian nationalism can't be stopped now and "will be implemented". Please quote him rather than just give your own summary of what he said. I ask that because I listened to him carefully and don't think he made reference to any such things.

Then you can tell us what that has to do with anything under discussion in this thread.