Let's get this straight.

Another good read.

Barr’s First Amendment point deserves to be taken seriously. No politician should be disqualified from seeking any office because of any speech that genuinely is protected by the First Amendment. But I wonder whether Trump’s role in the January 6 Capitol attack is fully clothed with First Amendment protection. It’s not just his specific speech on January 6 itself, or his infamous “will be wild” tweet, for which Trump would be prosecuted (assuming special prosecution is planning to move forward, as Barr himself believes). Rather, as brought out by the House January 6 Committee, it is the entirety of Trump’s conduct with respect to the attack on the Capitol—including his failure to exercise the authority of his office—which would qualify as “giv[ing] aid or comfort” to the January 6 insurrectionists for purposes of both the criminal statute and section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Normally, an individual is not punished for failure to act. But Trump had a constitutional duty as president to exercise the authority of his office to suppress the insurrection at the Capitol. His purposeful failure to do so, especially after engaging in conduct that (whether intended or not) precipitated the insurrection, makes him responsible as a participant—and in a way that has no First Amendment defense.

John C. Breckinridge and ... Donald J. Trump #ELB
John C. Breckinridge was Vice President of the United States in 1860, when he ran for the presidency as the nominee of Southern Democrats, who had split from the northern wing of the party (which nominated Stephen Douglas). Lincoln of … Continue reading John C. Breckinridge and … Donald J. Trump →
electionlawblog.org

 

Intent of laws are often revealed in colloquies of the congressional record and are useful when there is ambiguity.

I'll get you the text, if you need proof.

 

They discussed it. Period. That does not make anything binding.

 

Denver District Judge Sarah B. Wallace previously cited the timeline of Trump’s actions and his history of promoting political violence in finding that Trump “acted with the specific intent to incite political violence and direct it at the Capitol with the purpose of disrupting the electoral certification.”

But she also ruled that Section 3 wasn’t meant to pertain to presidents.

The state Supreme Court stated that she erred on that latter count. It took issue with Wallace’s rationale that earlier drafts of the 14th Amendment explicitly mentioned the presidency and the idea that it was specifically excluded.

The court cited a drafter of the amendment, then-Rep. Samuel McKee (Ky.), who at one point described the aim as barring traitors “from all political power in the nation.”

“While nothing in Representative McKee’s speeches mentions why his express reference to the Presidency was removed,” the court ruled, “his public pronouncements leave no doubt that his subsequent draft proposal still sought to ensure that rebels had absolutely no access to political power.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...mail&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_daily202

 

The colloquy cleared up the issue of 'officer inclusive of the president'.

That will aid any determinative agency for any ruling on that point.

It's also fair and reasonable to draw an opinion therefrom.

 

No due process and no congressional legislation, no removal from the ballot. It doesn't matter what everyone says. It is what the constitution says. Period.

 

And Trump got no such choice.

 

Except that language does not appear in the Amendment it self meaning that when the Amendment was written that argument lost.

 

True, there was no trial but there was a court involved - the Colorado supreme court - which, of course, doesn't have jurisdiction to decide on article 3. The 14th gives enforcement responsibility for article 3 to congress, not the states. And as you said, there was no due process of law. This was all politics. It had nothing to do with law or the constitution. The members who voted for this political nonsense should be removed from the court. I certainly wouldn't want them on my supreme court.

 

Both points have already been thoroughly debunked.

No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection” statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors.

 

No, because that point is cleared up.

Debunked in a thread I started a week ago, or so.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...settled-it-does-include-the-president.615509/

Or, just watch this short clip

 

An excellent read.

Donald Trump cannot be a candidate for any state or federal office in the United States of America. Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution makes this plain. No office-holding insurrectionist can return to office. The language is clear, and the facts of his case are not in dispute.

The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled to this effect, and the United States Supreme Court is now called upon to review its finding (in Anderson vs. Griswold). In my last post, I addressed arguments against the Constitution that I heard or read in the Midwest over the holidays. In this essay, I address the anti-Constitutional discourse that appears in the media: that the Constitution should be displaced by the fears of people who appear on television.

This form of opposition to the Constitution poses as expertise. It takes the form of advice to the Court: find some way to allow Trump to be on the ballot, because otherwise people will be upset. Because we are used to hearing endless conversations about politics on television, where everyone seems to be a political advisor, it can seem normal to reduce sections of the Constitution to talking points. But we must pause and consider.
https://snyder.substack.com/p/the-pitchfork-ruling

 

Correct. They were not banned from running because they were guilty of rebellion or insurrection. They were banned because they were former confederate officials. Being a former confederate official was not a crime. Why do I have to keep repeating this?

 

‘We’ll put them down very quickly’: Trump threatens to quash election night riots

“We’ll put them down very quickly if they do that. We have the right to do that. We have the power to do that, if we want,” Trump said.

“Look, it’s called insurrection,” he added. “We just send in, and we do it very easy. I mean, it’s very easy. I’d rather not do that because there’s no reason for it, but if we had to, we’d do that and put it down within minutes.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/11/trump-election-night-riots-412323

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

 

He was wanting to put the riot down quickly. That he called it an insurrection doesn't make it so.

 

Gosh, you folks will say anything.

 

At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to be disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.

Section 3, also known as the Disqualification Clause, has gained new relevance in the wake of the January 6th insurrection, when a violent mob that then-President Trump summoned and urged to “fight like hell” seized the United States Capitol to disrupt the peaceful transition of power. Adopted after the Civil War to protect American democracy from those who sought to destroy it, Section 3 disqualifies from office anyone who swore an oath to support the Constitution as a federal or state officer and then engaged in insurrection or rebellion against it, unless Congress removes the disqualification by a two-thirds vote.

CREW analyzed historical records to identify all public officials who a court, legislature, or other body determined to have been disqualified under Section 3. The list includes six officials aligned with the Confederacy who held office after the Civil War, as well as former New Mexico County Commissioner Couy Griffin, who a state court removed from office last year based on his participation in the January 6th insurrection following a lawsuit CREW brought on behalf of three New Mexico residents.

The precedent for 14th Amendment disqualification - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to be disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.
www.citizensforethics.org

 

But as I said they did not hold a trial and convict Trump of insurrection as due process requires. There was no grand jury, there was no indictment on the charge, there was trial before a jury, there was no jury conviction, ot concurrence of the judge, no immediate appeal and review, no review before the SCOTUS. Maine is even more egregious and I hear a state legislature is calling for her impeachment and removal and also that the Florida SecState is considering haveing Biden removed from the ballot there.

Yes applying the 14th amendment is for Congress to do so not these states and no Congress has. The Dems tried to in the impeachment citing the 14th and their attempt to disqualify him and it failed.

 

Since when did state courts become the legal and constitutional authority with jurisdiction over insurrections against the United States?

When did Congress find Trump engaged in an insurrection and ban him from holding the office?
When has a federal court with jurisdiction found him guilty of insurrection?

 

Yep. This is politics at its worst.

 

I can only conclude your apparent confusion on every aspect of this matter comes from not having read thru the thread since every one of your points is addressed and debunked.

 

There are lots of things I don't say. As an example If I said what I actually thought of your posts it would be deleted by the site censors so I don't say it.

 

They were banned from being on a ballot for elected office because by virtue of being soldiers in the confederate army they were correctly regarded as insurrectionists. Just as Trump is for his participation in the failed coup.

 

I give your comments all the weight they deserve.

 

Actually no. Only confederate office holders were banned, not because they were guilty of insurrection but because they were former confederate officials. That was not a crime.