Ed Is Trump disqualified from the ballot by the 14th Amendment?

[TellyKNeasuss]

Now that the Supreme Court has accepted the appeal, what are the possible decisions:
1) Rule that Jan. 6 did not qualify as an insurrection.
2) Rule that Trump has not been proven to have been a participant in what happened at the Capitol.
3) Rule that the 14th amendment only prevents insurrectionists from taking office but not from running for office and that it would be a violation of a political party's constitutional rights to prevent them from running the candidate of their choice.
4) Rule that the parties rather than the govt. organize the primary elections and that it's up to the political parties whether they want to allow an ineligible person to compete.
5) Rule that the determination of the eligibility of candidates under the 14th amendment is the purview of the legislative branch and not the courts.
6) Rule that the 14th amendment does not apply to the presidency.
7) Rule that the hearings on the disqualification did not afford Trump a sufficient opportunity to present his case.
8) Rule that since the ballots have been printed and mailed out that it's too late to remove Trump from the ballot.
9) Uphold the Colorado decision.

What others have a missed?

 

[theprestige]

Now that the Supreme Court has accepted the appeal, what are the possible decisions:
1) Rule that Jan. 6 did not qualify as an insurrection.
2) Rule that Trump has not been proven to have been a participant in what happened at the Capitol.
3) Rule that the 14th amendment only prevents insurrectionists from taking office but not from running for office and that it would be a violation of a political party's constitutional rights to prevent them from running the candidate of their choice.
4) Rule that the parties rather than the govt. organize the primary elections and that it's up to the political parties whether they want to allow an ineligible person to compete.
5) Rule that the determination of the eligibility of candidates under the 14th amendment is the purview of the legislative branch and not the courts.
6) Rule that the 14th amendment does not apply to the presidency.
7) Rule that the hearings on the disqualification did not afford Trump a sufficient opportunity to present his case.
8) Rule that since the ballots have been printed and mailed out that it's too late to remove Trump from the ballot.
9) Uphold the Colorado decision.

What others have a missed?

I think you've already overshot. The possible decisions will depend on the specific question(s) the Court has agreed to consider.

If the question is whether the President is an office holder in the 14th sense, they're not going to decide other questions like whether Jan 6 was an insurrection or whether Trump had any part in it.

If the question is whether the state of Colorado has standing to dictate eligibility for party primaries, they're not going to decide the question of whether the President is an office-holder.

Tell us what question exactly is being appealed, and we can tell you what the possible decisions actually are.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Now that the Supreme Court has accepted the appeal, what are the possible decisions:
1) Rule that Jan. 6 did not qualify as an insurrection.
2) Rule that Trump has not been proven to have been a participant in what happened at the Capitol.
3) Rule that the 14th amendment only prevents insurrectionists from taking office but not from running for office and that it would be a violation of a political party's constitutional rights to prevent them from running the candidate of their choice.
4) Rule that the parties rather than the govt. organize the primary elections and that it's up to the political parties whether they want to allow an ineligible person to compete.
5) Rule that the determination of the eligibility of candidates under the 14th amendment is the purview of the legislative branch and not the courts.
6) Rule that the 14th amendment does not apply to the presidency.
7) Rule that the hearings on the disqualification did not afford Trump a sufficient opportunity to present his case.
8) Rule that since the ballots have been printed and mailed out that it's too late to remove Trump from the ballot.
9) Uphold the Colorado decision.

What others have a missed?

Rule that Trump Violated his Oath of Office on January 6th 2021, and is Disqualified from ever holding any United States office ever again.
Since the 14th Amendment is about the Oath of Office.

 

[theprestige]

Rule that Trump Violated his Oath of Office on January 6th 2021, and is Disqualified from ever holding any United States office ever again.
Since the 14th Amendment is about the Oath of Office.

The 14th is about eligibility for office, not about the oath of office.

As far as I know, neither the constitution nor legislation nor court ruling has anything that disqualifies a candidate because they previously violated their oath of office. That would almost certainly be a matter for impeachment by Congress. Or a matter to be properly decided by the voters themselves.

On top of that, I'm pretty sure that's not the question being appealed to the Supreme Court. So they will almost certainly not try to decide that question when considering this appeal.

This isn't a fairy tale. The Supreme Court isn't a magic lamp. Nine justices don't billow forth when you rub it, and grant you a wish, and you can wish for whatever you want to set things right.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Now that the Supreme Court has accepted the appeal, what are the possible decisions:
1) Rule that Jan. 6 did not qualify as an insurrection.
2) Rule that Trump has not been proven to have been a participant in what happened at the Capitol.
3) Rule that the 14th amendment only prevents insurrectionists from taking office but not from running for office and that it would be a violation of a political party's constitutional rights to prevent them from running the candidate of their choice.
4) Rule that the parties rather than the govt. organize the primary elections and that it's up to the political parties whether they want to allow an ineligible person to compete.
5) Rule that the determination of the eligibility of candidates under the 14th amendment is the purview of the legislative branch and not the courts.
6) Rule that the 14th amendment does not apply to the presidency.
7) Rule that the hearings on the disqualification did not afford Trump a sufficient opportunity to present his case.
8) Rule that since the ballots have been printed and mailed out that it's too late to remove Trump from the ballot.
9) Uphold the Colorado decision.

What others have a missed?

I think you've done a very good job of listing the court's options.

I don't think they'll go with 5). Ceding power to the legislative branch at the expense of the judicial branch is not something I expect to see from the judicial branch.

All of the other eight sound possible, although several strike me as unlikely.

The unlikely ones, in my opinion, are 5), 6), 7), 8), and 9).

I think 9) is the most defensible decision the court could make, and I do expect to see that said in one or more dissenting opinions, but I'm too cynical about this court to think a majority will go for 9).

8) seems unlikely because the SCOTUS would then have to face the same issues in other states, and I don't think the justices want to deal with this over and over.

7), like 8), would just kick the can down the road.

6) would be cowardly. I'm cynical enough to believe a majority of the justices could summon enough cowardice to go with 6), but not cynical enough to think they'd be comfortable setting that precedent.

So I'm expecting some or all of 1) through 4).

3) and 4) have the same disadvantage as 7) and 8), but might let the SCOTUS wait to see how Trump fares in one or more criminal trials or the general election. If Trump becomes a convicted felon before the election, the SCOTUS would find it easier to rule that he is excluded from the presidency by the 14th amendment. If Trump loses the election, the SCOTUS can say the issue is moot.

So I think a majority will probably coalesce around some combination of 1) through 4).

 

[tyr_13]

That's an incredibly weak analogy.

Ignoring your analogy which I find too terribly distanced from the basics of the argument here, where in this thread did the procedural action that followed the 14th Amendment become sans due process?

SNIP

I'm not sure if I worded it extremely badly or if you've misread, but first I wasn't using an analogy and second I'm not saying there was no process. I'm specifically being critical of those who are arguing that the only level of process due could be the same as in criminal trials.

I think we are agreeing generally.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

The 14th is about eligibility for office, not about the oath of office.

As far as I know, neither the constitution nor legislation nor court ruling has anything that disqualifies a candidate because they previously violated their oath of office. That would almost certainly be a matter for impeachment by Congress. Or a matter to be properly decided by the voters themselves.

On top of that, I'm pretty sure that's not the question being appealed to the Supreme Court. So they will almost certainly not try to decide that question when considering this appeal.

This isn't a fairy tale. The Supreme Court isn't a magic lamp. Nine justices don't billow forth when you rub it, and grant you a wish, and you can wish for whatever you want to set things right.

Read the 14th Amendment any one having sworn an Oath to defend the Constitution and Commiting Insurrection is Disqualified from office, so Article 3 is all about violation of the Oath of Office.

 

[JayUtah]

Read the 14th Amendment any one having sworn an Oath to defend the Constitution and Commiting Insurrection is Disqualified from office, so Article 3 is all about violation of the Oath of Office.

Yes, the amendment covers only officers who have sworn to support the Constitution. But there are ways to violate an oath of office that don't amount to insurrection or giving aid and comfort to enemies and so don't result in a bar from future office under the amendment.

 

[Tero]

Well, there we have it then. Is the president a person? Does he hold an office? Or is he more? He is more like the pope. For four years.

 

[Brainster]

Because elections are run by the states. This court has denied over and over intervening on how States run elections.

And if the Republicans decide to go tit for tat and ban Biden from the ballot in Florida, Ohio and Texas, that's just their right as a state?

Nope this has to be resolved by the court.

 

[tyr_13]

And if the Republicans decide to go tit for tat and ban Biden from the ballot in Florida, Ohio and Texas, that's just their right as a state?

Nope this has to be resolved by the court.

Biden hasn't done anything that could remotely be considered violating the provisions of the 14th Amendment. In that way, keeping Trump off the ballot would be good, valid, and just, and keeping Biden off would be abuse of power.

The facts matter. The response to the enforcement of every law against Republicans cannot be 'well the GOP will hold us hostage'. Are we a nation or laws or not? The GOP and those arguing that we cannot use the law are saying that we are not. They aren't all saying that we shouldn't be, but every single one is recognizing the fact that the GOP are lawless and without honor.

Seriously, apply this to any other law. If Trump shot someone on Fifth Avenue on live television, is it a valid argument to say we (New York, where I live) can't arrest him for it because then Texas might arrest Biden?

The way to deal with that is by rejecting those that abuse power from having governmental power, having Congress pass laws governing elections in the states to establish rules for enforcing the 14th, or an Amendment removing the provisions of the 14th that the people no longer find just.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

I don't think they'll go with 5). Ceding power to the legislative branch at the expense of the judicial branch is not something I expect to see from the judicial branch.

I was thinking that 1 or 2 of the dissenting justices in the Colorado Supreme Court used this as part of their dissent. I could be wrong.

7), like 8), would just kick the can down the road.

My (perhaps incorrect) understanding of Colorado law is that hearings on the eligibility of candidates are limited to 5 days, and if that is the case then there might not be a way of holding a hearing that would pass Supreme Court muster.

So I'm expecting some or all of 1) through 4).

1) would seem to run the risk of encouraging more political violence. 2) seems more likely. SCOTUS wouldn't even have to go into much detail about how they decided.

3) and 4) have the same disadvantage as 7) and 8), but might let the SCOTUS wait to see how Trump fares in one or more criminal trials or the general election. If Trump becomes a convicted felon before the election, the SCOTUS would find it easier to rule that he is excluded from the presidency by the 14th amendment. If Trump loses the election, the SCOTUS can say the issue is moot.

I don't see the Supreme Court barring Trump were he to be officially nominated much less if he won the election.

 

[Mike!]

And if the Republicans decide to go tit for tat and ban Biden from the ballot in Florida, Ohio and Texas, that's just their right as a state?

Nope this has to be resolved by the court.

Trump would be banned from holding office, while Biden would just be left off the ballot, making him still a viable 'write in' candidate, meanwhile it wouldn't help Trump in the least writing him in, it'd just a wasted vote.

 

[theprestige]

Read the 14th Amendment any one having sworn an Oath to defend the Constitution and Commiting Insurrection is Disqualified from office, so Article 3 is all about violation of the Oath of Office.

No. The oath of office is what defines who is subject to the article. It does not define what the disqualifying offense is. The offense is insurrection.

Also, the Supreme Court very rarely considers or decides questions of guilt. Unless the decision being appealed here is a lower court's finding that Trump is guilty of violating his oath of office, the Supreme Court isn't going to decide that question.

You can't treat the Supreme Court like a genie that grants whatever you wish for. They're considering a specific question of constitutionality. Not whatever question you wish they'd consider.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

No. The oath of office is what defines who is subject to the article. It does not define what the disqualifying offense is. The offense is insurrection.

Also, the Supreme Court very rarely considers or decides questions of guilt. Unless the decision being appealed here is a lower court's finding that Trump is guilty of violating his oath of office, the Supreme Court isn't going to decide that question.

You can't treat the Supreme Court like a genie that grants whatever you wish for. They're considering a specific question of constitutionality. Not whatever question you wish they'd consider.

Insurrection is a clear violation of the Oath of Office, and the lower court found Trump committed an Insurrection. If the Supreme Court finds Trump did Commit an Insurrection, then Trump is disqualified by the 14th Amendment.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

No. The oath of office is what defines who is subject to the article. It does not define what the disqualifying offense is. The offense is insurrection.

Also, the Supreme Court very rarely considers or decides questions of guilt. Unless the decision being appealed here is a lower court's finding that Trump is guilty of violating his oath of office, the Supreme Court isn't going to decide that question.

You can't treat the Supreme Court like a genie that grants whatever you wish for. They're considering a specific question of constitutionality. Not whatever question you wish they'd consider.

My Relative on the Weedman Side of my Family was barred from office for Violating his Oath of Office after he fought for the Confederacy in the Civil war, he was a Town Mayor before the War, after the War he could no longer hold any office as the Judge said he Violated his sworn Oath by siding with the Confederacy after the Union raided the Farm for supplies.

 

[theprestige]

Insurrection is a clear violation of the Oath of Office, and the lower court found Trump committed an Insurrection. If the Supreme Court finds Trump did Commit an Insurrection, then Trump is disqualified by the 14th Amendment.

Yeah, because he committed insurrection, not because he violated the oath of office. They are two distinct things. They are not legally synonymous.

Not only that, but the Supreme Court is not even considering the question of whether Trump committed insurrection, with this appeal. Do you even know what the appeal is about?

My Relative on the Weedman Side of my Family was barred from office for Violating his Oath of Office after he fought for the Confederacy in the Civil war, he was a Town Mayor before the War, after the War he could no longer hold any office as the Judge said he Violated his sworn Oath by siding with the Confederacy after the Union raided the Farm for supplies.

Do you understand that the Supreme Court is not considering the question of whether Trump violated his oath of office, with this appeal?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Yeah, because he committed insurrection, not because he violated the oath of office. They are two distinct things. They are not legally synonymous.

Not only that, but the Supreme Court is not even considering the question of whether Trump committed insurrection, with this appeal. Do you even know what the appeal is about?


Do you understand that the Supreme Court is not considering the question of whether Trump violated his oath of office, with this appeal?

The Finding of the Colorado Supreme Court are key too this case unless the Supreme Court overturns the Finding that Trump engaged in an Insurrection, they will have to Up hold the Colorado Supreme Court's decision. to remove him from the Ballot or invent New law to explain why they did not.
There is one person the Supreme Court Justices fear more than Donald Trump, and that is Mitch McConnell, this is a perfect opportunity for Mitch McConnell too use the Constitution to remove an Embarrassment from the 2024 race. Removing Trump might lead to a Win for Republicans in the Senate. Plus it could help Republicans to win the White House in 2024.

 

[JayUtah]

Yeah, because he committed insurrection, not because he violated the oath of office. They are two distinct things. They are not legally synonymous.

I wrote a post trying to tease these concepts apart and then deleted it in favor of going out to walk the dog.

I agree, committing insurrection and violating one's oath of office are not synonymous. But neither are they independent. Committing insurrection would certainly be one way to violate one's oath of office. But the first elemental act for the 14th Amendment is having taken the oath. Then the next elemental act is the insurrection or the aiding of an enemy. What makes that act odious enough to merit a bar from office is the first having taken the oath. And I find it difficult to name an insurrectionary action that does not also violate an oath to support the Constitution.

Therefore I can see how people disinterested in the nuance of law can look upon this as a distinction without a difference. But as a lawyer would have to argue the case, the two acts must be proven separately with evidence—the one without respect to the other. The argument proves that a suitable oath was taken. Then the argument separately proves that the subject engaged in insurrection as the amendment intends it, irrespective of whether that act also may have some other effect. The argument does not have to argue that the oath of office was violated by the subsequent actions complained of.

Not only that, but the Supreme Court is not even considering the question of whether Trump committed insurrection, with this appeal.

Are you certain? The petition for writ of certiorari most certainly raised two relevant questions: whether the action of Jan. 6, 2021 constituted an insurrection within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, and whether President Trump's activity on that day constituted engagement. The petition contends that the Colorado court erred in deciding those points. The order granting certiorari did not exclude any element of the question. However, the exact argument won't be properly before the Court on appeal unless it appears in Petitioner's brief on the merits, due Jan. 18 of this year.

 

[Hercules56]

Read the 14th Amendment any one having sworn an Oath to defend the Constitution and Commiting Insurrection is Disqualified from office, so Article 3 is all about violation of the Oath of Office.

No, 14th Am has nothing to do with "violating the Presidential oath of office".

Its if you committed insurrection and if you previously swore an oath to the USC while a Federal officer.