- cross-posted to:
- politics@kbin.social
- cross-posted to:
- politics@kbin.social
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution bans anyone who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the U.S. from holding office.
A Florida lawyer is suing Donald Trump in an attempt to disqualify his current run for president. Lawrence A. Caplan’s Thursday lawsuit claims that the ex-president’s involvement in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot would make him ineligible to run again, thanks to the Constitution’s 14th Amendment—a Civil War-era addition aimed at preventing those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the U.S. from holding office. “Now given that the facts seem to be crystal clear that Trump was involved to some extent in the insurrection that took place on January 6th, the sole remaining question is whether American jurists who swear an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution upon their entry to the bench, will choose to follow the letter of the Constitution in this case,” the lawsuit says, also citing Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia. Legal experts say it’s an uphill battle to argue in court, since the amendment has hardly been exercised in modern history. “Realistically, it’s not a Hail Mary, but it’s just tossing the ball up and hoping it lands in the right place,” Charles Zelden, a professor of history and legal studies at Nova Southeastern University, told the South Florida Sun Sentinel.
archive link to South Florida Sun Sentinel article: https://archive.ph/1BntD
I don’t think it will even get as far as standing.
The difference between Trump and the other guy removed from office because of 1/6:
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/judge-removes-local-official-engaging-jan-insurrection/story?id=89463597
Is that that guy had actually been convicted. Hasn’t happened for Trump… yet.
My expectation would be that because Trump’s case has not yet been adjudicated, he still has the premise of innocent until proven guilty, and until such time, he’s still qualified.
deleted by creator
Well according to the theory of the case the 14th amendment is self-executing, so it doesn’t require that Trump be convicted. It remains to be seen how well that stands up in court however.
The trick is the language of the 14th:
Forbids anyone from holding office who “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.”
What does “shall have engaged” mean? Who decides if they actually engaged or not? This is why we need a court decision, as we had in the other guy who was removed. He was convicted of conspiring to overthrow the government, he got removed from office.
Trump and his ilk are going to argue that they were the legitimate rulers, that the rebellion was AGAINST THEM. That’s why we can’t just kick them out without a ruling.