Tiny complaint. Can we quit using Trump's photo on all the stories about him? I am sooooo tired of looking at his face. Put up a clown, a photo of the excesses at his residence(s), his golf cart on a green. Something else. At worst, his mug shot.
I'm opposite in dealing with anything relating to domestic terrorist leader tRump nowadays, I got inspired constantly not missing my chance to vote for all Democrats in all elections until the day I die!
I’m not so sure that red states would have grounds to strike Biden from the ballot in retaliation for striking Trump due to ineligibility. After all, Trump would be disqualified on the basis of the 14th amendment for having participated in or given aid and comfort to a participant in the insurrection whereas no such grounds exist for Biden. So striking his name would be capricious at best and illegal at worst. Now, the cynic in me wants to grumble that the current Republican Party has little to no concern for the legality of such a move, but the idealist wants to point to the rule of law and upholding our democracy as imperative to closing the case. Either way, our democracy needs to prevail for the best interests of the majority of its citizens.
Well, after reading Jay's excellent breakdown on the subject about tRump's eligibility in the 2024 presidential election I've become overwhelmed with legal complexity. Like there's a lot of things in life I can't control the outcome, I just let others to work it out. But I always keep my eye on the ball plus to take action within my power in politics. I go vote as that's the simpliest way of living which is free to all citizens in America. Voting. Only political power for me for the last few decades that I will never take it for granted.
I don’t see how any states could keep Biden off the ballot with zero evidence of insurrection or any other piece of the 14th amendment. Seems like a slippery slope argument at the best.
If the section of the 14th amendment being addressed here doesn’t apply to tRump, what’s the point of it being there at all?
Excellent write-up, explained a lot of why there “is” back and forth when it “should” be obvious. My question: How can one sociopathic narcissist BE ALLOWED to tie up so many courts in so many jurisdictions? IMO, the recent quick decisions by judges hearing his endless appeals tells me they are getting tired, too. It’s no longer glamorous to be presiding over DJT for anything. Waste of everyone’s time and resources. Enough already! Convict him and send him to prison for more than a token of time.
There is so much I don’t understand. I guess being naive is one of my downfalls. I see it as being an easy decision to not let someone like Trump be the most powerful person in the world. All the legal aspects are mind boggling.
That's understandable, Caroline. A long time ago like over 25 years ago, I was exactly like you. And I was told by a sage man : you can't eat an elephant in one day! So, from that day on I began to work to learn about everything in life including politics in order to be less "I don't understand". Nothing is easy but I 've evolved slowly and gradually to be a better citizen today. By the way, tRump is just paper tiger, not the most powerful person in the world. The most powerful person in the world is you when you utilize your power to better this world.
There are days when I feel like we'll never be rid of that waste of human DNA. Also, how much are all these legal proceedings costing the taxpayers? Can we get Trump to cover the charges? Just for funsies?
A point to consider in view of possible arguments against invoking §3 is that a three-judge panel from the 4th CA had previously heard, in a case involving former Rep. Madison Cawthorne and removing him from the ballot based upon the "insurrection" clause, where the District judge hearing the case ruled that the 1872 Amnesty Act was NOT prospective, but only referred to former Confederate officers previously banned from seeking office. That decision, overturned on appeal, foreclosed any appeal to "forever" amnesty for ANY candidate for federal office who risked being barred by §3. Basically, an act of Congress can't negate a Constitutional amendment.
That appellate decision in fact only addressed the question of a defense AGAINST barring a candidate for office based upon the "insurrection" clause. It did not judge on the MERITS of disqualifying Cawthorne under §3, and as the commentary by Jay et al indicates, we remain in an untested environment, with all the possible scenarios playing out as the authors noted above. Regardless of the claims of "self-executing", there is NO way a state official can take unilateral action against a (federal) candidate based upon §3 without judicial hearings involving amongst other considerations "due process", the boundaries of federalism, etc. I'm betting that §3 won't keep tRump off the ballot, for no other reason that any suit attempting to do would be tied up indefinitely in various courts well past the Nov. 2024 elections.
Totally agree with you about this it’s a legal quagmire,it’s a forever case that’ll take years to resolve,but due processes can’t be denied! It’s a tough one.
Thanks so much for this clear and comprehensive analysis. However it’s depressing for those who believe all that has to be done is a bit of magic wand waving and Trump will be banned .
Thank You Jay Kuo. I saw that you said you were concerned about this newsletter and it is easy to understand your concern. Over the past several weeks I have read the 14th Amendment over and over yet still am undecided about the HOW it is to be enforced. Your analysis today clarifies a lot of questions, but enforcement remains a question. I suppose that the secretaries of the states and other persons responsible for the elections process are asking these questions also. If the states take action it will certainly become a lawsuit very quickly and they will surely end up at the SCOTUS.
I suspect that if the Colorado case even makes it that far, SCOTUS will punt the ball; either by saying that it is each individual state's responsibility to decide if a candidate qualifies to be on the ballot or by saying the 14th Amendment doesn't apply in this case by whatever weasel wording they use to avoid having to take a definitive stand. I happen to agree with the author's of this article by the way: invoking the 14th Amendment against tRump sets a dangerous precedent. Red State Republicans might well use this to try to disqualify the Biden/Harris ticket from their state ballots.
We really can’t fail to do the right thing just because someone may not like it. That’s giving into bullies and their threats.
Of course Republicans will retaliate by trying to remove Biden from ballots. It’s what they’re doing now with their threats of impeachment. They have NO legitimate basis for doing so; it’s pure retaliation. (There were clear, valid reasons to impeach Trump. Such is not the case for Biden.)
So, they’re going to retaliate. Big deal. We respond by sticking to holding them to meeting legal requirements to justify their actions and inevitably beat them in court. Biden remains on the ballot.
Yeah, it’s a pain we have to make that effort, but that’s what Republicans are counting on: wearing us down so we give up and they win. The bully threatening to hurt us so we back down and they win without ever having to actually carry out their threat.
Should we really be that willing to lose that we don’t even put up a fight?
Isn't the likeliest result in scOTUS to be a very narrow definition of the terms in question, along with remand to any state court that had made its decision based on broader definitions? I suspect the narrowing would be mostly of the term "engage" PLUS a requirement that the other two terms involve violence--either at an organized level or the lesser level that resulted in the "seditious conspiracy" charges--eg destroying government property. Trump's actions in the fake elector scheme didn't involve violence, and he wasn't AT the violence in the capital. I really wish the secret service had let him go on Jan 6 so that he COULD be directly involved in the violence.
Jack Smith did NOT charge trump on the statute that directly parallels the 14th Amendment (USC 18 §2383) I presume he had his reasons and, from all his actions thus far, those reasons are probably good ones, involving not only the First Amendment but also those very definitions now at issue.
My conclusion is basically the same as yours: what scOTUS will do is up for grabs.
My other question is what happens if all this is decided against trump AFTER trump is (horrors) elected? Say a candidate was able to successfully lie about his age or whether he was a natural born citizen--trutherism proven. Would determination of those disqualifications be a grounds for removal if impeachment is the only Constitutional means? The age/birth issues could be categorized as fraud, but the insurrection disqualification, being decided later, has an ex post facto feel to it.
I don't see this Supreme Court ever allowing Trump to be barred from any State's ballot. I'd add that even if it did, protests would be the least of our concerns. There would definitely be violence and terrorism, all instigated by the Former Guy and his lackeys in Congress and egged on by Fox, OANN and Newsmax (not to mention incendiary bomb throwers like Joe Rogan, Mark Levin, etc.).
Thank you Jay for this thoughtful and informative post. My thoughts are that SCOTUS will do everything it can to avoid making a decision on this issue. Think “standing” to bring the action or political controversy. Although conservative scholars are behind this reasoning to remove TFG’s name from the ballots, SCOTUS is beholden to him and will not cross him.
I can see why this topic gave you fits, per your FB post earlier today. It's definitely a question that would cause sleeplessness, considering the many possible arguments. One thought, though -- I can't help but wonder if Marjorie Three-Names could be barred from the ballot now that she's called for secession. It seems that statement alone would be sufficient evidence to invoke the statute.
I realize that, but she recently (within the last couple of days) called for secession (unless I'm mistaken?). This is new, so I'm wondering if it might help a second attempt to succeed.
The thing I hate most about this situation is that Trump did not win, yet, he has managed to keep himself in our minds. It is really unhealthy to have to think about someone that deranged all the time. I really think the way to go with Trump is to say he is mentally incompetent by means of insanity, and put him into a prison for the criminally insane, or a mental institute with heavy security instead of a regular prison. The man needs help, and by him not getting it, we are all going to need help.
Tiny complaint. Can we quit using Trump's photo on all the stories about him? I am sooooo tired of looking at his face. Put up a clown, a photo of the excesses at his residence(s), his golf cart on a green. Something else. At worst, his mug shot.
Likewise, I cringe every time I hear his voice. SO tired of it all.
Um - I agree but I feel comfortable with his pic at the Iowa football game. All those people giving home the middle finger was just so compelling.
I'm opposite in dealing with anything relating to domestic terrorist leader tRump nowadays, I got inspired constantly not missing my chance to vote for all Democrats in all elections until the day I die!
I’m not so sure that red states would have grounds to strike Biden from the ballot in retaliation for striking Trump due to ineligibility. After all, Trump would be disqualified on the basis of the 14th amendment for having participated in or given aid and comfort to a participant in the insurrection whereas no such grounds exist for Biden. So striking his name would be capricious at best and illegal at worst. Now, the cynic in me wants to grumble that the current Republican Party has little to no concern for the legality of such a move, but the idealist wants to point to the rule of law and upholding our democracy as imperative to closing the case. Either way, our democracy needs to prevail for the best interests of the majority of its citizens.
Well, after reading Jay's excellent breakdown on the subject about tRump's eligibility in the 2024 presidential election I've become overwhelmed with legal complexity. Like there's a lot of things in life I can't control the outcome, I just let others to work it out. But I always keep my eye on the ball plus to take action within my power in politics. I go vote as that's the simpliest way of living which is free to all citizens in America. Voting. Only political power for me for the last few decades that I will never take it for granted.
The lack of evidence hasn’t stopped the impeachment inquiry tho has it?
I agree.
I don’t see how any states could keep Biden off the ballot with zero evidence of insurrection or any other piece of the 14th amendment. Seems like a slippery slope argument at the best.
If the section of the 14th amendment being addressed here doesn’t apply to tRump, what’s the point of it being there at all?
Amen!!
Excellent write-up, explained a lot of why there “is” back and forth when it “should” be obvious. My question: How can one sociopathic narcissist BE ALLOWED to tie up so many courts in so many jurisdictions? IMO, the recent quick decisions by judges hearing his endless appeals tells me they are getting tired, too. It’s no longer glamorous to be presiding over DJT for anything. Waste of everyone’s time and resources. Enough already! Convict him and send him to prison for more than a token of time.
His constant delays are his strategy. It's probably his only hope. But it's exhausting.
One sad irony of this situation is he's probably not going to pay his army of lawyers fully, if at all if history repeats itself.
I hope they all enjoy their contribution to the end of democracy. Pro bono.
He can only delay for so long before his chickens come home to roost. I can hear them clucking as we speak.
The Roy Cohning of America
There is so much I don’t understand. I guess being naive is one of my downfalls. I see it as being an easy decision to not let someone like Trump be the most powerful person in the world. All the legal aspects are mind boggling.
They are, even to a trained lawyer such as myself. Truly mind boggling.
That's understandable, Caroline. A long time ago like over 25 years ago, I was exactly like you. And I was told by a sage man : you can't eat an elephant in one day! So, from that day on I began to work to learn about everything in life including politics in order to be less "I don't understand". Nothing is easy but I 've evolved slowly and gradually to be a better citizen today. By the way, tRump is just paper tiger, not the most powerful person in the world. The most powerful person in the world is you when you utilize your power to better this world.
Thank you for that!
There are days when I feel like we'll never be rid of that waste of human DNA. Also, how much are all these legal proceedings costing the taxpayers? Can we get Trump to cover the charges? Just for funsies?
A point to consider in view of possible arguments against invoking §3 is that a three-judge panel from the 4th CA had previously heard, in a case involving former Rep. Madison Cawthorne and removing him from the ballot based upon the "insurrection" clause, where the District judge hearing the case ruled that the 1872 Amnesty Act was NOT prospective, but only referred to former Confederate officers previously banned from seeking office. That decision, overturned on appeal, foreclosed any appeal to "forever" amnesty for ANY candidate for federal office who risked being barred by §3. Basically, an act of Congress can't negate a Constitutional amendment.
That appellate decision in fact only addressed the question of a defense AGAINST barring a candidate for office based upon the "insurrection" clause. It did not judge on the MERITS of disqualifying Cawthorne under §3, and as the commentary by Jay et al indicates, we remain in an untested environment, with all the possible scenarios playing out as the authors noted above. Regardless of the claims of "self-executing", there is NO way a state official can take unilateral action against a (federal) candidate based upon §3 without judicial hearings involving amongst other considerations "due process", the boundaries of federalism, etc. I'm betting that §3 won't keep tRump off the ballot, for no other reason that any suit attempting to do would be tied up indefinitely in various courts well past the Nov. 2024 elections.
Totally agree with you about this it’s a legal quagmire,it’s a forever case that’ll take years to resolve,but due processes can’t be denied! It’s a tough one.
Thanks so much for this clear and comprehensive analysis. However it’s depressing for those who believe all that has to be done is a bit of magic wand waving and Trump will be banned .
Were that it were so simple!
😁
Thank You Jay Kuo. I saw that you said you were concerned about this newsletter and it is easy to understand your concern. Over the past several weeks I have read the 14th Amendment over and over yet still am undecided about the HOW it is to be enforced. Your analysis today clarifies a lot of questions, but enforcement remains a question. I suppose that the secretaries of the states and other persons responsible for the elections process are asking these questions also. If the states take action it will certainly become a lawsuit very quickly and they will surely end up at the SCOTUS.
I suspect that if the Colorado case even makes it that far, SCOTUS will punt the ball; either by saying that it is each individual state's responsibility to decide if a candidate qualifies to be on the ballot or by saying the 14th Amendment doesn't apply in this case by whatever weasel wording they use to avoid having to take a definitive stand. I happen to agree with the author's of this article by the way: invoking the 14th Amendment against tRump sets a dangerous precedent. Red State Republicans might well use this to try to disqualify the Biden/Harris ticket from their state ballots.
We really can’t fail to do the right thing just because someone may not like it. That’s giving into bullies and their threats.
Of course Republicans will retaliate by trying to remove Biden from ballots. It’s what they’re doing now with their threats of impeachment. They have NO legitimate basis for doing so; it’s pure retaliation. (There were clear, valid reasons to impeach Trump. Such is not the case for Biden.)
So, they’re going to retaliate. Big deal. We respond by sticking to holding them to meeting legal requirements to justify their actions and inevitably beat them in court. Biden remains on the ballot.
Yeah, it’s a pain we have to make that effort, but that’s what Republicans are counting on: wearing us down so we give up and they win. The bully threatening to hurt us so we back down and they win without ever having to actually carry out their threat.
Should we really be that willing to lose that we don’t even put up a fight?
Isn't the likeliest result in scOTUS to be a very narrow definition of the terms in question, along with remand to any state court that had made its decision based on broader definitions? I suspect the narrowing would be mostly of the term "engage" PLUS a requirement that the other two terms involve violence--either at an organized level or the lesser level that resulted in the "seditious conspiracy" charges--eg destroying government property. Trump's actions in the fake elector scheme didn't involve violence, and he wasn't AT the violence in the capital. I really wish the secret service had let him go on Jan 6 so that he COULD be directly involved in the violence.
Jack Smith did NOT charge trump on the statute that directly parallels the 14th Amendment (USC 18 §2383) I presume he had his reasons and, from all his actions thus far, those reasons are probably good ones, involving not only the First Amendment but also those very definitions now at issue.
My conclusion is basically the same as yours: what scOTUS will do is up for grabs.
My other question is what happens if all this is decided against trump AFTER trump is (horrors) elected? Say a candidate was able to successfully lie about his age or whether he was a natural born citizen--trutherism proven. Would determination of those disqualifications be a grounds for removal if impeachment is the only Constitutional means? The age/birth issues could be categorized as fraud, but the insurrection disqualification, being decided later, has an ex post facto feel to it.
I don't see this Supreme Court ever allowing Trump to be barred from any State's ballot. I'd add that even if it did, protests would be the least of our concerns. There would definitely be violence and terrorism, all instigated by the Former Guy and his lackeys in Congress and egged on by Fox, OANN and Newsmax (not to mention incendiary bomb throwers like Joe Rogan, Mark Levin, etc.).
It is a big concern. But the text of the Constitution seems to be clear. We’ll have to see what they do.
Thank you Jay for this thoughtful and informative post. My thoughts are that SCOTUS will do everything it can to avoid making a decision on this issue. Think “standing” to bring the action or political controversy. Although conservative scholars are behind this reasoning to remove TFG’s name from the ballots, SCOTUS is beholden to him and will not cross him.
I believe they will find a way to punt this on technical grounds.
I can see why this topic gave you fits, per your FB post earlier today. It's definitely a question that would cause sleeplessness, considering the many possible arguments. One thought, though -- I can't help but wonder if Marjorie Three-Names could be barred from the ballot now that she's called for secession. It seems that statement alone would be sufficient evidence to invoke the statute.
They tried and failed to do this.
I realize that, but she recently (within the last couple of days) called for secession (unless I'm mistaken?). This is new, so I'm wondering if it might help a second attempt to succeed.
😢😩😡
Very good point!
What a mess!
The thing I hate most about this situation is that Trump did not win, yet, he has managed to keep himself in our minds. It is really unhealthy to have to think about someone that deranged all the time. I really think the way to go with Trump is to say he is mentally incompetent by means of insanity, and put him into a prison for the criminally insane, or a mental institute with heavy security instead of a regular prison. The man needs help, and by him not getting it, we are all going to need help.
Blessed Originalism...
And a critical matter had to be Put on Pause. .
because of Doubts about the relevant Clause ..
It needed Learned Delving of the sort
the Responsibility of The Highest Court . .
Its applicability to Will Be Wild possibly Flawed . .
# To The Rescue . . .
I do love to see your short poems after each post 😊
An Alt Reality . . .
The Magatanic is Escalating Downward, Sorry-ish folks
But with a Donation you can get Your Own Lifeboat. .
The Ice Sheer Off wan't Fake . .but that wasn't The Savvy
Captain's mistake . .No ManWomanPerson stuff
to climb in . .That's Woke . .
#Collision To Remember . ..
It's so simple and so complicated,my god ,how does any thing at all get done?