Do we know why they didn't move forward with Article three (3)

[Upthevibe]

of the 14th Amendment?

[sfstaxprep]

1. They Can't Without Conviction

It's not going to happen.

[Upthevibe]

3. Yes they can.....

With a simple majority. I'll find the link.
3rd Article of the 14th Amendment

I sent this email to a friend of mine after one of my friends brought up that she had read somewhere about the 14 Amendment:

.....Look what I came across..(Source: WUSA9.comwww.wusa9.com (Author: Matt Gregory)Updated: 2:31 PM EST February 8, 2021
Washington, DC's Leading Local News


(excerpt from the article).......In the middle of the push for a second impeachment for President Trump, University of Maryland Constitutional Law professor Dr. Mark Graber said he got an interesting call from a member of Congress. They wanted to know about the 14th amendment to The Constitution.

“The reason why I was zeroing in on [the 14th Amendment] is for the last four or five years, I've been writing a book on the forgotten 14th amendment,” Dr. Graber said of why he got the call.

In addition to his book, Dr. Graber has written several articles on the 14th amendment. It’s safe to say he is one of the top experts on it.

“The 14th amendment is the big post-Civil War amendment,” he said. “Section Three is the part we are concerned with. It says, the short version is, anyone who participates in an insurrection is ineligible for state or federal office.”

According to Dr. Graber, there’s no trial just a simple question to Congress:

“It's for Congress to determine whether there was an insurrection and whether somebody participated.”

Both chambers of Congress would then vote to invoke Section Three of the 14th amendment.

Here’s the key: An impeachment conviction requires that two-thirds of the Senate would have to vote for conviction. Section Three of the 14th amendment only requires a simple majority vote.

[FBaggins]

4. Trump already proved...

... that no matter how ridiculous a constitutional theory is, you can still find a law professor somewhere who will make the argument.

This is merely another example.

There is nothing in the constitution that gives congress the claimed power. They can only use it to exercise their existing powers (e.g., either impeachment or refusing to seat a newly elected member)

[FBaggins]

2. They lack the power to do so

[Upthevibe]

5. This video from DU. Neal Katyal: 14th Amendment

Move To Ban Trump From Future Office May Require Court Process - MSNBC



https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017640552

[FBaggins]

6. He clarified it later

He's talking about changing existing law and passing legislation implementing 14A in a way that doesn't currently exist... not the speculated resolution or concurring resolution that you referred to above.

This would pretty certainly be unconstitutional (for the existing reasons plus now an ex post facto concern), but it would put the ball in Trump's court to challenge it - assuming that the Senate could get past a filibuster to pass it and Biden was willing to sign it.

[csziggy]

7. He had a long discussion with Jonathan Capehart this morning about how to use the 14th Amendment

Video will probably be available later today.

[Upthevibe]

8. csziggy....

Thank you. I'll be looking for the video..