14th Amendment, Section 3. " No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress ...

[My Pet Orangutan]

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.

ALL WHO VOTED TO CHALLANGE THE CERTIFICATION OF ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES AFTER THE INSURRECTION, GAVE AID AND COMFORT TO THE ENEMIES OF THE CONSTITUTION.

THROW THEM OUT!

[procon]

1. Expell every last one of the anti American traitors. nt

[trueblue2007]

39. Send Trump and OTHERS OF "HIS ILK" to the moon. Let them live on the black side of moon.

Never to see the earth again.

[MyOwnPeace]

2. And there's the "killer"........

"But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds......."

When 74 million people think IQ45 deserves a second term, and over 100 Congressmen vote to challenge the votes of America, we've got a problem.

[DSandra]

6. Apparently a law is not a law if enough people have power in the government...

Because they have enough power to stonewall enforcement of it.

[TryLogic]

40. And apparently a law is not a law if enforcing it might make the law breakers mad.

[BComplex]

9. No. That means they can vote to keep the person if the vote is 2/3 of both houses.

Other than the vote to keep them, they are not allowed to hold office.

But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

That's the way I read that, anyway. They create a DISABILITY to hold office, but the 2/3 vote can REMOVE that disability.

[CMYK]

41. agree

It takes 2/3 vote to "remove the disability", in other words, to keep them in office they will require two thirds of their colleagues to be willing to 'look the other way'. Somehow, they should automatically (?) be removed from office. But How?

[pecosbob]

51. Correct...this was included to allow repentant seccessionists to apply for re-admission

[RealityCheque]

3. Think higher!

Trumps actions also fall into this statute.

[DallasNE]

44. The President Is Not Specifically Named

So it would depend on the meaning of "an officer of the United States". There is also the letter that says a sitting President cannot be charged with a crime. Looks like circular logic. Frankly, eliminating that 1976 letter would be a place to start. That would at least permit trying a President for violations of the crimes spelled out in the 14th Amendment. I have always felt that the 1976 letter was overly broad.

[RealityCheque]

46. Points well taken...

Would you thing “an officer of” IS broad enough to encompass President and VP?

[DallasNE]

50. That Is The Question

Impeachment applies to all officers in all branches of government. The 1976 letter does not cover the VP, only the President. The 14th Amendment lists a number of officers, including State officers, but does not specifically mention either the President or Vice President. I'm sure the 14th Amendment was worded the way it was to assure people from the old confederacy could be dealt with should they not be loyal to the post slavery America. The assumption was probably that the President and Vice President would not have ties to the old confederacy so there was no need to include them. Trump proved them wrong.

Since the rioters wanted to hang the Vice President and he refused to go along with the plot the VP is clear. Trump is not. Under current rules, including the 1976 letter, Trump would first need to be impeached and then tried for the crimes. It would be wise to replace that 1976 letter with one that would create classes of crimes. The class of High Crimes could be pursued immediately but a class of common crime could not be brought against a sitting President.

I am not an attorney.

[fierywoman]

4. At this point, neither chamber has 2/3 of the vote.

[My Pet Orangutan]

7. The 2/3 vote is to allow them to continue sitting,

the 14th Amendment renders their presence unconstitutional in itself. It requires no vote.

[DallasNE]

45. Correct. But It Requires

The party to have been found guilty of these specific crimes in a court of law. But guilty verdicts can be appealed all of the way up to the Supreme Court so when in the process does the 14th Amendment engage?

[RealityCheque]

47. Key point "2/3 of those in session"

[onetexan]

5. kick!!

[dweller]

8. The 2/3 needed

Is to REMOVE the charge to those that “ 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.”

Not to remove the member who has committed insurrection

✌🏻

[fierywoman]

10. Sorry -- yes I'm clear that the 2/3 allows them to be seated again. Therefore,

since there isn't a 2/3 vote in either chamber, these traitors should be booted out ASAP, like yesterday.

[dweller]

12. Need to be charged first

which I hope is soon to be coming

✌🏻

[My Pet Orangutan]

14. Merrick Garland

An AG with that stature to charge them.

[RealityCheque]

48. 2/3 of those seated in the session when the vote is called.

[cally]

11. Does anyone have enough legal training to help define legal insurection and

being part of it? I know legal scholars must have analyses of this section. Would each member involved have to be individually charged in court or could the say the house and Senate expel members through say an ethics investigation? At the very least, this should be used against the one new Congressmember who was part of the insurrection and came to the Capitol and the many state legislators. Then go after those who spoke at the rally.

[My Pet Orangutan]

13. They don't have to have taken part of the insurrection,

only that they gave aid and comfort to those who were.

[flibbitygiblets]

52. aid and comfort seem pretty easy to prove

aid (hindering security, making it easier for them to attack members of congress; letting looters and insurrectionists go home without being charged--making it harder to arrest many of them)

comfort ("we love you, you are special" statement from none other than the president--whose congressional syncophants voted to object to state-certified electors and overturn the will of the people; Hawley's fist raised in support of the mob)

[hedda_foil]

15. Too bad that doesn't include the T media.

[Fiendish Thingy]

16. They have to be convicted first. Nt

[My Pet Orangutan]

17. Did the Confederates need to be convicted?

A finding of fact, by AG Garland, would suffice - and indeed, given the gravity of charging members of Congress, prefereable.

[Fiendish Thingy]

18. They were expelled by a 2/3 vote. Without a 2/3 vote to expel, a conviction for insurrection

Is required.

[My Pet Orangutan]

20. Not so.

The 2/3 vote is to allow them to continue sitting.

[Fiendish Thingy]

22. No, you are wrong. To be expelled, a 2/3 vote is required

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/expulsion.htm

[My Pet Orangutan]

23. No. You are wrong.

A finding that a person is disqualified by the Constitution from sitting in Congress would be made by the AG. Once such a finding is made, Congress has no role. There are not qualified to be a member of Congress. "But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

[tritsofme]

24. You think the AG can unilaterally disqualify members of Congress?

[My Pet Orangutan]

26. No. But I can imagine the matter being referred to the AG,

and that does not require a 2/3 vote.

[tritsofme]

27. Right...but the AG has no power to unilaterally disqualify members

unless 2/3 of that chamber votes otherwise. That seems to be what you were arguing in earlier posts?

[My Pet Orangutan]

28. Senate majority leader Schumer requests the AG

for a ruling on the qualifications of Hawley to sit in the Senate. AG Garland finds Hawley is disqualified under the 14th Amendment. He is gone. No 2/3 vote necessary.

[BGBD]

30. No

That's not how it works.

The AG doesn't have the power to declare someone is guilty of a crime. Otherwise a motivated AG could just start disqualifying members of congress.

The member would need to be charged and convicted in court of insurrection or a vote would be required to expel them without a conviction.

[My Pet Orangutan]

33. The AG, is not finding whether they are guilty of a crime

they are finding whether a member is qualified to sit in Congress. The findings of fact would ground a criminal prosecution, but that is not required.

It was precisely because the Confederates were not guilty of a crime, following President Johnson amnesty, that the 14th Ammendment was passed in the first place.

[StarfishSaver]

54. Referring to the AG means referring for prosecution, not for a determination

An AG has no authority to determine on their own whether someone is guilty of insurrection.

[My Pet Orangutan]

56. So who would make the determination?

The very point of the 14th was to disqualify members who were not guilty of a crime following President Johnson's amnesty.

[StarfishSaver]

58. A court

The AG would launch an investigation and prosecution. The person would be indicted and tried and, if convicted by the court (either a judge or a jury), THEN Congress could act.

But the AG can't just on their own decide that people are guilty of crimes and get them kicked out of Congress based on their unilateral decision. That's not how any of this works.

And you can bet that if it did, Bill Barr would have gotten Pelosi and Schiff and half of the Democratic Caucus expelled from Congress on the ground that he declared them to be insurrectionists.

[My Pet Orangutan]

59. Understood.

Thank you.

[StarfishSaver]

60. YW

[tritsofme]

31. So supposing McConnell, this afternoon, were to ask Acting AG Whoever

for a finding that all 50 Democratic members are disqualified under the 14th amendment...would they be gone? No 2/3 vote necessary? Is that really how you think it works?

[My Pet Orangutan]

35. I have been arguing in good faith.

CU.

[tritsofme]

38. If you think the AG possesses such spectacular power, it begs the question as to why Trump's

criminal administration did not abuse it?

What would have stopped them from removing members of the new Democratic House majority in 2019 and senators today? Norms?

[Fiendish Thingy]

29. We are talking about two different things- Confederates were expelled by 2/3 vote

To be determined disqualified to serve in the senate requires a conviction for Insurrection. Yes, the AG would assert that disqualification, using the conviction as evidence.

You claimed the confederate senators were disqualified- they were not- my link in previous post shows that they were expelled by 2/3 vote.

[My Pet Orangutan]

32. I disagree.

A finding of fact is sufficient. Participating in the Civil war, were excused crimes when the 14th Amendment was passed. There is no requirement for a criminal conviction. What was critical is that they broke their oath to the Constitution. A finding that the events of January 6 constituted an insurrection, and that members, by their conduct, violated their oath, - that would suffice.

No 2/3 vote required - which was my point.

[Fiendish Thingy]

37. The US senate website states they were "expelled" which is defined in the Constitution as requiring

a 2/3 vote.

Disqualification requires a conviction for Insurrection.

If you're suggesting Hawley or Cruz could be expelled by a simple "finding of fact" by the AG, you are mistaken.

[My Pet Orangutan]

53. Where does the 14th Amendment refer to a crime or conviction?

On the contrary, the 14th Amendment was passed precisely because there was no crime for the Civil War insurrection following President Johnson's amnesty. Congress could not keep those previously expelled out, so they instituted the 14th.

The makes AG a determination in law that the members are not qualified to sit in Congress. It is analogous to finding a member is not a citizen.

There is redress in the courts, if Hawley and Cruz want a declaration they are not subject to the 14th.

[StarfishSaver]

55. It's contained in another part of the 14th - the Due Process Clause

A Member cannot be expelled from Congress without due process of law. The Attorney General CANNOT unilaterally find a person guilty of insurrection and have that determination used as the basis to have them expelled from Congress.

You can argue otherwise all you want. But you're just flat out wrong.

[My Pet Orangutan]

57. Got it.

ty. How would this work?

[Fiendish Thingy]

61. That was my entire point- without a conviction they have grounds for appeal. Nt

[My Pet Orangutan]

25. The secessionists were expelled before the 14th Amendment.

[brooklynite]

19. Perhaps you should take this up with Speaker Pelosi and Maj. Leader Schumer...

I can confidently say that she won't be throwing anyone out.

[My Pet Orangutan]

21. The matter will rest with AG Garland.

[brooklynite]

34. I'm equally confident that no member of Congress will face charges

[My Pet Orangutan]

36. Charges are not necessary

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100214871834#post33

[TryLogic]

43. My bet is that no member of congress will be charged or expelled.

So the label of do-nothing will continue, as will their miniscule approval rating.

[onenote]

42. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was adopted specifically to deal with the Civil War

And while in theory it could apply to a subsequent insurrection or rebellion, it is not going to be applied in the present circumstances which, as bad as they are, still involve the members you would have it apply to doing nothing they weren't permitted to do under the law. You can take that to the bank.

That said, it possible that a case could be made that the West VA House of Delegates member who entered the Capitol should be disqualified from continuing in office per the 14th Amendment.

[BGBD]

49. It could be applied there

Although I expect he is going to be pressured into resigning very soon. I'm also understanding that there may be other members of the WV legislature and other state legislatures that were there, although I'm not sure how involved they were.

Cruz, Hawley, and anyone who objected to the election were acting within the law, even if it was in bad faith. However, Mo Brooks might be an interesting case since he was at the Ellipse riling up the mob and saying some pretty combative things. There were some others as well. I think they would have more exposure to those types of charges that could lead to expulsion. I'm also interested in things we don't know about. Who in congress has been in contact with some of the people who lead the attack? Would it be crazy to think that Matt Gaetz or Margorie Taylor-Green were helping to organize it?