• You may find search is unavailable for a little while. Trying to fix a problem.

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

Hercules56 said:
Yes, officer may be position appointed by the President or folks delegated by President to do so.

It may be important that 14th Amendment does NOT state that a new condition for being President is not having engaged in insurrection.

All important things to consider.
Click to expand...

It depends on whether the president qualifies as an "officer of the United States". However, I stand by the claim that the reason that senators, representatives, and presidential electors were specifically mentioned in the 14th amendment is that they definitely are not "officers of the United States", so that the fact that there were specifically listed is not irrefutable evidence that the authors of the 14th amendment intended to exclude the presidency.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
It depends on whether the president qualifies as an "officer of the United States". However, I stand by the claim that the reason that senators, representatives, and presidential electors were specifically mentioned in the 14th amendment is that they definitely are not "officers of the United States", so that the fact that there were specifically listed is not irrefutable evidence that the authors of the 14th amendment intended to exclude the presidency.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

But there is a good argument to be made that POTUS is not an officer of the USA and that the 14Am did not add a new qualification for POTUS.

Not happy about it. Just being honest. :(
 
When a US president is sworn in, they make an oath that starts: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States."

Did someone miss that bit?
 
Norman Alexander said:
When a US president is sworn in, they make an oath that starts: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States."

Did someone miss that bit?
Click to expand...

An officer of the United States is a functionary of the executive or judicial branches of the federal government of the United States to whom is delegated some part of the country's sovereign power. The term officer of the United States is not a title, but a term of classification for a certain type of official.

Under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, the principal officers of the U.S., such as federal judges, ambassadors, and "public Ministers" (Cabinet members) are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, but Congress may vest the appointment of inferior officers to the president, courts, or federal department heads. Civilian officers of the U.S. are entitled to preface their names with the honorific style "the Honorable" for life, but this rarely occurs. Officers of the U.S. should not be confused with employees of the U.S.; the latter are more numerous and lack the special legal authority of the former.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offic...f the United,of the country's sovereign power.
 
Hercules56 said:
An officer of the United States is a functionary of the executive or judicial branches of the federal government of the United States to whom is delegated some part of the country's sovereign power. The term officer of the United States is not a title, but a term of classification for a certain type of official.

Under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, the principal officers of the U.S., such as federal judges, ambassadors, and "public Ministers" (Cabinet members) are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, but Congress may vest the appointment of inferior officers to the president, courts, or federal department heads. Civilian officers of the U.S. are entitled to preface their names with the honorific style "the Honorable" for life, but this rarely occurs. Officers of the U.S. should not be confused with employees of the U.S.; the latter are more numerous and lack the special legal authority of the former.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offic...f the United,of the country's sovereign power.
Click to expand...
But it is in the oath of office. Which has been around a lot longer than Wikipedia. So they must have been swearing in presidents all wrong for centuries!
 
Norman Alexander said:
But it is in the oath of office. Which has been around a lot longer than Wikipedia. So they must have been swearing in presidents all wrong for centuries!
Click to expand...

So all officers of the Federal government are a Federal "office"? I don't think that's accurate. Maybe I'm wrong.

The Appointments Clause of the Constitution (Article II, section 2, clause 2), empowers the President of the United States to appoint "Officers of the United States" with the "advice and consent" of the U.S. Senate.

According to an April 2007 memorandum opinion by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, addressed to the general counsels of the executive branch, defined "officer of the United States" as:[3]

a position to which is delegated by legal authority a portion of the sovereign power of the federal government and that is 'continuing' in a federal office subject to the Constitution's Appointment Clause. A person who would hold such a position must be properly made an 'officer of the United States' by being appointed pursuant to the procedures specified in the Appointments Clause.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offic...f the United,of the country's sovereign power.



Crap, there indeed seems to be a very good argument that President is not an officer, as he appoints the officers.

Hopefully others can come up with an opposite argument.
 
Last edited:
There is a recent Supreme Court opinion discussing the scope of the Constitution's "Officers of the United States"-language. In Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd. (2010), Chief Justice Roberts observed that "[t]he people do not vote for the 'Officers of the United States.'" Rather, "officers of the United States" are appointed exclusively pursuant to Article II, Section 2 procedures. It follows that the President, who is an elected official, is not an "officer of the United States."

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/2...ses-of-section-3-of-the-fourteenth-amendment/
 
B. Constitutional Text: “Officers of the United States”

The relevant portion of Article II, Section 2 states:
The President . . . shall have Power . . . to nominate, and by and
with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint
Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls, Judges of the
supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose
Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall
be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the
Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the
President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of
Departments.9
 
That's a terrible argument.
A Ship's Captain is an Officer who can appoint other Officers.
Same in the Army.
Being higher in Rank is a difference of quality, not a difference in kind.

We are using Military Terminology here. It's silly to pretend it isn't.


If someone claims that the President isn't an officer of the US, but doesn't describe what he is instead, we should ignore him.

Because the question is about whether the President is subject to the Rule of Law or not.
And any attempt at making his post into something mythical is clearly an attempt to make him above the Law.
Which he isn't, according to the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm...

"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."

Trump may not have been an officer, but he did hold an office. Had he once been a Congressman and then engaged in insurrection, 14th Am would better apply. But he took the oath as POTUS, not as an Officer of the USA.

Crap. This is really gonna go down to mere opinion.
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
Seriously, what is the President supposed to be if not an Officer?
A Unicorn?
Click to expand...

An officer in the US govt is someone who has authority that has been delegated to him from a higher level personnel. Who has delegated their authority to the president of the United States?

Senators and Congressmen are not officers. Why is the President?
 
Last edited:
Mike! said:
Is a Commander an officer?
Click to expand...

Is a Commander-in-Chief an officer?

I'm not a lawyer and I haven't stayed at a Holiday Inn Express in a LONG time, so I don't know what the answer is. But the possibility that the Colorado judge is correct, albeit apparently for the wrong reason, cannot be dismissed.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
I don't think that Insurrection was against the United States.
Click to expand...
That's because the United States didn't exist yet. It was, however, an insurrection against what was at the time their legitimate government.

The only reason we don't call it an insurrection today is because they won.
 
Hercules56 said:
Hmmm...

"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."

Trump may not have been an officer, but he did hold an office. Had he once been a Congressman and then engaged in insurrection, 14th Am would better apply. But he took the oath as POTUS, not as an Officer of the USA.

Crap. This is really gonna go down to mere opinion.
Click to expand...

Here's the full presidential oath of office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Pretty clear, really. Trump broke his oath of office AS PRESIDENT. Anyone who therefore lets him hold any office again is derelict in their duty.
 
Last edited:
Norman Alexander said:
Here's the full presidential oath of office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Pretty clear, really. Trump broke his oath of office AS PRESIDENT. Anyone who therefore lets him hold any office again is derelict in their duty.
Click to expand...

14th Am says if swear to uphold the constitution and engage in insurrection, you cannot become President.

The swearing must be done while:

-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.

Trump was not an officer of the USA, as all Officers of the USA have authority delegated to them by a higher level personnel. At least that's what the legal language and legal precedent seems to say.

This ALL may boil down to a legalize debate as to the official definition of "Federal officer", and Trump may win.
 
Hercules56 said:
14th Am says if swear to uphold the constitution and engage in insurrection, you cannot become President.

The swearing must be done while:

-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.

Trump was not an officer of the USA, as all Officers of the USA have authority delegated to them by a higher level personnel. At least that's what the legal language and legal precedent seems to say.

This ALL may boil down to a legalize debate as to the official definition of "Federal officer", and Trump may win.
Click to expand...
The justice of the Supreme Court who swore him in thereby confirms he has been given the responsibility for the OFFICE of president. Says so right there in the oath that he took.

Unless you think that this oath was no more than pinky-swears and crossed fingers stuff? And the words were just high-falutin' legalese pomp? (Trump sure did - he very likely forgot entirely what he swore to do before he even finished shaking hands with people.)
 
Norman Alexander said:
The justice of the Supreme Court who swore him in thereby confirms he has been given the responsibility for the OFFICE of president. Says so right there in the oath that he took.

Unless you think that this oath was no more than pinky-swears and crossed fingers stuff? And the words were just high-falutin' legalese pomp? (Trump sure did - he very likely forgot entirely what he swore to do before he even finished shaking hands with people.)
Click to expand...

You're confusing having an office, with being a Federal Officer.

They are clearly NOT the same.

i.e. Congressmen and Senators are NOT Federal officers.

Also:

In Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd. (2010), Chief Justice Roberts observed that "[t]he people do not vote for the 'Officers of the United States.'" Rather, "officers of the United States" are appointed exclusively pursuant to Article II, Section 2 procedures. It follows that the President, who is an elected official, is not an "officer of the United States."
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
You're confusing having an office, with being a Federal Officer.

They are clearly NOT the same.
Click to expand...
Uh...no. No confusion. Perhaps you are, though?


i.e. Congressmen and Senators are NOT Federal officers.
Click to expand...
No, they are elected. Come on, you know this.

Also:

In Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd. (2010), Chief Justice Roberts observed that "[t]he people do not vote for the 'Officers of the United States.'" Rather, "officers of the United States" are appointed exclusively pursuant to Article II, Section 2 procedures. It follows that the President, who is an elected official, is not an "officer of the United States."
Click to expand...
That refers to military officers, and the president's role as Command In Chief. You need to do better research.

Then they had better change the oath of office of POTUS! It's patently wrong! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Norman Alexander said:
Then they had better change the oath of office of POTUS! It's patently wrong! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

If we lived in an era in which elected officials felt that their first loyalty was to the country, Trump would have been impeached and removed from office for violating his oath of office. But in an era in which one of the major political parties is only interested in gaining power, what should have happened and what did happen are not the same.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
If we lived in an era in which elected officials felt that their first loyalty was to the country, Trump would have been impeached and removed from office for violating his oath of office. But in an era in which one of the major political parties is only interested in gaining power, what should have happened and what did happen are not the same.
Click to expand...
Which means the oath of office is just so much high-falutin' folderol to placate the masses. Panem et circenses.
 
Tero said:
Yeah, this is where Trump went wrong. He should have started the insurrection in New York. He would have kept his Trump tower and business as King of NewYork.
Click to expand...

Or the United States Marine Corps would have made it pot hole New York, after Removal of King Trump.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Uh...no. No confusion. Perhaps you are, though?


No, they are elected. Come on, you know this....
Click to expand...

President is also elected. Why does this make Congressmen non-officers but not the President?

...That refers to military officers, and the president's role as Command In Chief. You need to do better research.
Click to expand...

I see no evidence Chief Justice Roberts was referring to military officers.
 
Last edited:
Norman Alexander said:
That refers to military officers, and the president's role as Command In Chief. You need to do better research.
Click to expand...


You owe Hercules an apology. This case is about the Securities and Exchange Commission, and has nothing to do with military officers, a fact which you would have discovered if you'd bothered to do any research at all.
 
SpitfireIX said:
You owe Hercules an apology. This case is about the Securities and Exchange Commission, and has nothing to do with military officers, a fact which you would have discovered if you'd bothered to do any research at all.
Click to expand...
Apart from spending about two ******* hours reading all that **** about the legal aspects of a country I don't ******* live in, no, I spent no time doing any research.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/477/#tab-opinion-1963375
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/2...ses-of-section-3-of-the-fourteenth-amendment/

Etc.
 
Alright.
Actually, the Citizens are above the Commander in Chief.


And if the President is NOT an Officer then the DOJ has no business substituting the US for his defense in legal matters involving him.
I would be fine with that, too.

What I can't stand is this "we'll have it both ways".
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
Alright.
Actually, the Citizens are above the Commander in Chief.


And if the President is NOT an Officer then the DOJ has no business substituting the US for his defense in legal matters involving him.
I would be fine with that, too.

What I can't stand is this "we'll have it both ways".
Click to expand...

President is not an officer because he has no authority delegated to him by a higher level personnel. That's what an "officer" means in this context. President is the USA's Chief Executive, who delegates authority to Federal Officers.
 
Last edited:
14Am seems to have intentionally not listed President as covered govt position.

Why? Perhaps because they were following the concept that one man's insurrection is another man's revolution. Who knows.
 
Fine, but until you have a legal description of his position, he IS an officer in the absence of another definition.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Fine, but until you have a legal description of his position, he IS an officer in the absence of another definition.
Click to expand...

Constitution describes President as the holder of the USA's Executive authority. He delegates his authority to Executive agencies and officers.
 
Been thinking more about this issue of whether the 14Am Section 3 applies to the President. I think the very fact that we are having this discussion is proof that it indeed does NOT apply to President.

Every other article in the Constitution or Amendments that apply to the President is crystal clear. There is no ambiguity. There is no misunderstanding as to if it applies to the President.

14th Am Section 3? Its very debatable as to whether it applies to President and I think that's clearly why it does not.

We also have Chief Justice Roberts ruling in a case that President is not an "officer", so precedent has been set.

However, many Lawyers and even Governors and Supreme Court Justices may disagree with me and I totally welcome that, as I don't want Trump to be President again. But if the legal minds decide the 14th Am is not an obstacle to that, I'll understand.

Sigh.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Apart from spending about two ******* hours reading all that **** about the legal aspects of a country I don't ******* live in, no, I spent no time doing any research.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/477/#tab-opinion-1963375
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/2...ses-of-section-3-of-the-fourteenth-amendment/

Etc.
Click to expand...


You still owe Hercules an apology, because your own research was clearly extremely poor. There's no reasonable reading of Roberts's opinion that suggests he was only saying that the President isn't a military officer, which is why I assumed that you hadn't actually read it.
 
SpitfireIX said:
You still owe Hercules an apology, because your own research was clearly extremely poor. There's no reasonable reading of Roberts's opinion that suggests he was only saying that the President isn't a military officer, which is why I assumed that you hadn't actually read it.
Click to expand...

He doesn't have to apologize to me. But he should acknowledge that he was not accurate. Roberts was clearly not talking about military officers as the case he was discussing had nothing to do with the military.
 
Hercules56 said:
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc...t-disqualified-14th-amendment-2025-rcna125352

Interesting that the author did not mention the possibility that Dem-controlled states that vote for Trump, could have their electoral slate NOT certified for Trump, due to his possible violation of the 14Am. Congress doesn't have to decide on certifying or rejecting electoral votes for Trump that were not certified and not sent to them for apprival.

Although I guess a Dem governor choosing to not certify Trump as the winner of his state, if Trump wins by like 10% points, due to the 14th Am, would cause a lot of angry people in their state. Rejecting the clear democratic will of the people is not something to be taken lightly.

I guess it would be up to Congress to say "well, according to the votes, Trump won. But he violated the 14th Am so we refuse to certify his win".

Oy.

Best thing to do is keep Trump off the ballot if he wins the primary. Cuz taking his win away from him and his voters AFTER it appears he actually won democratically, would not go well in this country.

:(
Click to expand...
I know, right? It’ll be like someone wore a tan suit and got a blowjob at the same time!
 
JayUtah said:
Indeed, the Electoral College generally cannot evade ineligibility of the candidate. In my state, only the death or felony conviction of the candidate for President or Vice President provides grounds for an elector not to vote for the candidate nominated by the party that elector represents. Yes, it was once the duty of the Electoral College to exercise some discretion in their vote, but no longer.

I find considerable wisdom in the notion that challenges to ballot placement are premature. If the 14th Amendment sec. 3 is to be invoked, the legal landscape today seems to be tilted toward doing it after the fact. Primary elections are private exercises only partially governed by state election procedures. And if what I suspect is true about the Michigan decision, the method of invocation is particular to each circumstance: members of Congress are dealt with according to the rules of the Congress, but with the authority of the 14th Amendment. An ineligible candidate for President would have to be challenged in a different way, not because that way works in all cases but because that way is appropriate to how a President accedes to the office.
Click to expand...
Don’t tease us!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom