Let's get this straight.

Sec 3 of the 14th stands on its own as the pertinent clause in the Constitution regarding ballot disqualification. Everything else is noise.

 

I found this excerpt from Judge Wallace's decision most entertaining.

Kash Patel testified on behalf of Intervenor Trump. Mr. Patel was the former Chief of Staff to the acting Secretary of Defense on January 6, 2021. Mr. Patel testified that on January 3, 2021, then-President Trump authorized 10,000-20,000 National Guard forces. He also testified about his experiences with the January 6th Select Committee including that he gave a deposition to the Committee. The Court finds that Mr. Patel was not a credible witness. His testimony regarding Trump authorizing 10,000-20,000 National Guardsmen is not only illogical (because Trump only had authority over about 2,000 National Guardsmen) but completely devoid of any evidence in the record.9 Further, his testimony regarding the January 6th Committee refusing to release his deposition and refusing his request to speak at a public hearing was refuted by Mr. Heaphy who was a far more credible witness. The Court did not give any weight to Mr. Patel’s testimony other than as evidence that the January 6th Select Committee interviewed many of Trump’s supporters as part of its extensive investigation.

Denver District Court Trump Disqualification Challenge Dismissed
Judge Wallace added in a footnote that the correct interpretation of Section 3 was “not for this court to decide.”
www.lawfaremedia.org

 

Since this confusion is cropping up incessantly on this forum, I started a thread on it.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...e-misunderstandings-of-section-3-14th.615719/

Section three is a disqualification process. Nothing is being deprived. there is no 'right' to be on a ballot.

You have to qualify, first. THEN you have a right to be on the ballot.

Without the gov depriving you of liberty, possessions (material or abstract, such as a 'right') there is nothing triggering due process.

That being said, if someone who is disqualified believes the disqualification wasn't just, they can sue (if disqualified by an official) or appeal (if disqualified by a court) and a judge can offer 'due process' insofar as the disqualification was fair, just, and done according to law.

You see, you have right to have your disqualification done just and fair per section 3.

You 'due process' exists for that determination.

And yes, a judge or justice making a ruling on the legality/constitutionality of the disqualification is 'due process'.

As I understand it, this is considered 'procedural due process'. (as opposed to substantive due process).

And no, I'm not a lawyer, I'm just a sea lawyer, just like everyone else on this forum.

 

No, it doesn't.

Procedural due process, i.e., a judge or justice determining that Trump's disqualification was done correctly as prescribed by section 3, I believe would be procedural due process (as opposed to substantive due process).

it is inevitable that different states, with differing procedures, will experience different outcomes. This is why SCOTUS will need to weigh in.

 

due process is the right of the person disqualified insofar as that the determination was legal/constitutional, fair and just per the facts giving rise to the disqualification. He can achieve that by a civil suit, if and official disqualified him, or by an appeal, of a lower court disqualified him.

substantive due process in a disqualification may, or may not arise, depending on context.

 

A judge making a ruling is due process. But the determination would be to the constitutionality of the disqualification.

At the appellate level, as I understand it, if there are three judges ruling that Trump did engage in insurrection (which I believe is the case), my view is the only way SCOTUS could rule for Trump would be that the lower courts were wrong on procedure.

 

It's not real clear. However.....

If they don't do a section 3 on the primary (remove before a primary is held), and he wins the primary, it's doubtful SCOTUS would remove him, even if they sue to remove him, because people voted, and since they did, it would be too big of an encumbrance to make states redo the vote.

If you read any of my posts, I've been making this very point. In fact, I started a thread on it:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...e-misunderstandings-of-section-3-14th.615719/

The only point at which 'due process' is appropriate is for the person disqualified, if he or she believes his or her disqualification was not fair, just, legal or constitutional, to seek remedy in a court. So, due process is limited only to the determination.

Looks like you haven't read any of my posts. Again, my response was to kriman who mentioned 'insists'. I make exactly the same point.

You really should look back a post or two in a conversation you weren't part of, before posting.

 

Trump committed insurrection, three judges have ruled on this (or maybe it was two, I forget).

Section three prescribes that no one should hold office if they committed insurrection.

Now, there are some procedural and substantive issues that have to be cleared up as to whether or not, Trump's disqualification was procedurally and substantively proper, correct, constitutional, etc., so SCOTUS will have to rule on this.

This has to be done, and popularity has nothing to do with it.

When it comes to the constitution, politics is irrelevant. I know it exists, and there are political consequences, but it is still irrelevant.

 

Nope that isn't due process it is an assumption.

 

No It is not.

 

You sure did. He hasn't even been charged with insurrection let alone tried. I can't guess where you got that information.

And the 5th amendment says that any criminal act (insurrection is a crime) enjoys the right of due process of law. If Trump is convicted of insurrection and the congress passes legislation to remove him from the ballot, then he can be removed from the ballot as prescribed in the 14th amendment.

It was clearly unconstitutional. No due process of law. No legislation by the congress. The 14th gives congress the power to enforce article 3, not the administration or the states.

These attempts to enforce 14.3 unconstitutionally is nothing but politics. It appears to be very relevant. Just consider the partisanship and misinformation we all see. I'm not sure why the supreme court hasn't resolved this already. They should get on it quickly.[/QUOTE]

 

Sure it is. But a judge providing an opinion out of court is not a ruling. Trump hasn't been charged with insurrection, let alone tried for it. There can't have been a ruling. Opinions are not due process of law.

 

Due process of law is about the process. That means a charge and a trial or some other legal resolution to a case such as a plea. Absent that there is no due process of law. Furthermore a state cannot disqualify a candidate in a national election. Only the congress can do that. So says the 14th amendment.

 

Nope, the constitution does not specify the fourteenth because the fourteenth, hadn't been written yet. Any natural born US citizen 36 years of age or older can run for president. That is the only prerequisites to run for president. And everyone has the right to do so. provided they meet the two and only two existing qualifications, the rest of what you asserted a simply self serving BS which as soon as SCOTUS rules on it you will be so informed. Almost all constitutional scholars not connected to the lawfare blog expect this to go 9-0 or 8-1 in Trump's favor. I expect most of the lawfare folks when the are willing to be honest would tell you it is at best a long shot. And the real purpose being not so much to put trump in jail but to keep Trump tied up in court and spending money on lawyers in stead of his campaign.

 

That would be the point you know?

 

In this country we call that a trial.

 

I just told you what your exact words were.

I'm only going by what you wrote, and by what you wrote,. you were wrong.

They are trying to take away the right of a man to run for president and the right of the people to vote for him with no due process

You are saying Trump has a right to run for president, which is an entitlement to be on a ballot. It is the same thing.

And that is wrong. That is what you wrote, okay? I mean, say what you mean. Take a moment to think your thoughts through.

Now, if you change your mind, just say so, looks like you have.

note that this process isn't finished, it will be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

It's called 'due process'.

He'll get his due process with the SCOTUS ruling. Patience, my friend.

I think this is merely a semantics issue.

Requirements for eligibility can indeed be categorized into two primary types:

1. Possessive Requirements: These are prerequisites that a candidate must possess or fulfill to be eligible for office. They typically include aspects like age, citizenship, residency, educational qualifications, or other specific criteria that are deemed necessary for holding the position. If a candidate does not meet these criteria, they are considered unqualified.
   
   
2. Prohibitive Conditions: These refer to actions or conditions that disqualify a candidate from holding office. Engaging in prohibited acts, such as insurrection or rebellion (as outlined in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution), or having conflicts of interest, criminal convictions, or other disqualifying factors fall under this category.

But, whether you agree with me on the term, it doesn't matter.

There is no requirement for a conviction to be disqualified/barred from the ballot.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/lsb/lsb10569

 

It is the final act in the process. In this case there hasn't even been a beginning to due process. For a judge to make a ruling there has to be a trial or another legal resolution to a criminal case such as a hearing involving a plea. Since Trump hasn't been charged with insurrection there can be no ruling.

Trump has not been charged or tried for any federal crime. There would not be any appellate action until there was a charge and trial. You are getting some bad information or confusing some other legal action for one involving insurrection. The law can be complicated but not in this case. It is as clear as a bell.

 

My exact words were:

I never said a person had the right to be on the ballot.

 

What is the assumption?

 

No, all of the amendments in the bill of rights apply always to the situations they address. These are clearly defined rights. You can't sweep them under the rug in order to achieve a political benefit or even a legal win.

The 14th was passed and used to prevent confederate officials from holding office. Being a former confederate official was not a crime so there was no due process involved. When you want to apply the 14th to a crime then the 5th amendment definitely requires due process of law. Ask any lawyer. Well not one who is a member of the Colorado supreme court. They knew better but launched a political action from the bench - one which they knew was unconstitutional. Heck I'm not a lawyer and I know it was unconstitutional. They certainly know the law better than I do. I repeat. The last sentence of the 14th amendment gives congress the power to enforce article 3, not the states. Insurrection is a federal crime. The Colorado supreme court judges know this as well. They sure managed to dupe the public though. They should be removed from the bench.

 

Wrong

Hell, due process does not necessarily even require a court proceeding. It states that administrative and executive proceedings can satisfy the Due Process Clause, and judicial review of the factual conclusions of state regulatory agencies might not be required, nor may judicial review be required at all. This implies that due process can be met in various ways, including potentially through a judge's ruling alone. For more details, you can read the full context here.

https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/05-procedural-due-process-civil.html

 

From the government, ergo Congress, is where I got that information. No conviction is required for section 3/14th.
"Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary"
See page 2 paragraph 3 of:
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10569

You do realize that criminal acts have civil components? Was the sex abuse ruling in the Carrol case against Trump a criminal ruling? No. is Sex Abuse a criminal act? yes. My point is that an act can be addressed in a civil procedure without regard to it's criminality.

Section three is a civil procedure, an administrative procedure, and does not deal with criminality, only the act. Like a civil suit, you have to separate 'criminal' from the act.

It can be done, and is done, all the time.

The 14th gives Congress the power to enforce via legislation. Disqualification on a section 3 of the 14th amendment does not require an act of congress, only that congress can legislate to remove the 'disability'.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not lay out a specific process for determining whether an individual falls under the disqualification it describes. It states the disqualification as a consequence for certain actions but does not detail the procedural aspects of how this determination is made.

In most state constitutions, there is a protocol for qualification and disqualification. Once disqualified, the person disqualified can seek remedy in the courts, if he or she believes the disqualification wasn't proper.

On this one, it will be ultimately up to the SCOTUS to decide.

More than one judge has ruled that Trump engaged in an insurrection. This calls to fore section three. These are not political determinations, they are findings of fact.

Whether or not Trump is justly disqualified, will have to be determined by the Supreme Court.

Not that the convention for an appellate court, noting that an appeal to the Supreme Court follows a similar convention, where if lower courts rule in agreement on what the facts are, they tend to defer to the lower courts on those facts, and rule elsewhere if they erred elsewhere, such as on procedure.

 

Looks like Gorsuch disagrees with you. Sure a state can, elections for federal office are administered at the state level. Protocols for qualification and disqualification are in state constitutions. State constitutions can and do provide the foundational legal framework for elections, the specific protocols for qualification and disqualification on primary ballots are often detailed in state statutes and regulations. These statutes are laws enacted by the state legislature that provide more detailed guidelines than what is typically included in a constitution

Where the federal courts come to for is if the person disqualified feels his disqualification isn't proper. Then the courts get involved for possible remedy, all the way to SCOTUS if necessary.

I answered you this in more detail here:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/lets-get-this-straight.615692/page-4#post-1074591232

The 14th gives Congress the power to enforce via legislation. Disqualification on a section 3 of the 14th amendment does not require an act of congress, only that congress can legislate to remove the 'disability'.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not lay out a specific process for determining whether an individual falls under the disqualification it describes. It states the disqualification as a consequence for certain actions but does not detail the procedural aspects of how this determination is made.

In most state constitutions, there is a protocol for qualification and disqualification. Once disqualified, the person disqualified can seek remedy in the courts, if he or she believes the disqualification wasn't proper.

On this one, it will be ultimately up to the SCOTUS to decide.

And, on the term 'due process', some say it requires a trial, and in case you think so, no, it doesn't require a trial.

Hell, due process does not necessarily even require a court proceeding. It states that administrative and executive proceedings can satisfy the Due Process Clause, and judicial review of the factual conclusions of state regulatory agencies might not be required, nor may judicial review be required at all. This implies that due process can be met in various ways, including potentially through a judge's ruling alone. For more details, you can read the full context here.

https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/05-procedural-due-process-civil.html