The 14th Amendment: 'There need not be a criminal conviction or even criminal charges'

[speak easy]

Perhaps the biggest of those surprises is the inclusion of a referral for inciting and assisting an insurrection and giving aid or comfort to insurrectionists under 18 U.S.C. 2383. That law derives from one first enacted in 1862 during the Civil War to provide for criminal penalties against Confederates and their accomplices attempting a violent secession from the Union.

Although the statute is seldom used, the committee is correct in its assessment that it applies to Mr. Trump’s conduct by summoning and whipping up the insurrectionists on Jan. 6 and then by failing to take action for three hours. The committee offers numerous examples of relevant misconduct, from Mr. Trump’s infamous remarks on the Ellipse, knowing that some of his listeners were armed, to his tweet attacking his vice president, Mike Pence, while the insurrection was underway, to his affectionate comments that day about the rioters (even if asking them to respect law enforcement).

In the 14th Amendment context, citizens could use the committee report to go to their state election officials to argue that Mr. Trump is prohibited from holding office and so from appearing on the ballot. There need not be a criminal conviction or even criminal charges; these citizens can point out that the constitutional prohibition has been prompted by the committee’s evidence. However those decisions by election officials turn out, the next stop will be the courts, which have already held that Section 3 violators can indeed be barred.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/19/opinion/january-6-trump-criminal-referrals.html

The 14th Amendment was enacted to keep former insurrections out of any office, civil or military, in the United States, whether or not they had been charged or convicted under 18 U.S.C. 2383. It does not contemplate the criminal standard of proof - beyond reasonable doubt. It suggests a common sense finding of facts , although as the OP says, 'the next stop will be the courts'.

Trump was the leader of the January 6th insurrection. That was the J6 Committee's finding of fact - something that will have to tested in the courts, but does not presume a criminal conviction. Can anyone seriously suggest that Jefferson Davis could have stood for Congress after the civil war because he was not convicted under 18 U.S.C. 2383, or other Federal criminal statute?

[2naSalit]

1. K&R

[Rhiannon12866]

2. Jefferson Davis was pardoned in 1978 by President Carter following an act of Congress.

[3Hotdogs]

5. I bet Ol' Jeff didn't even thank Jimmie. But more to the point, who will decide if Trump's actions

fit the criteria?

Courts have decided that the law is valid but means of enforcement seem vague.

[lefthandedskyhook]

7. What is not vague

"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"

Suggesting publicly that we destroy the Constitution violates this Disqualification Clause. That's not vague. DOJ just needs to make the charge and it will stick

[NullTuples]

29. "or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" includes doing nothing for hours but watch TV

...while any form of law enforcement was being intentionally held back from acting.

[Beastly Boy]

3. An excellent observation.

It perfectly illustrates why the J6 Committee's findings are so much more significant than its criminal referrals.

[bucolic_frolic]

4. Get on to the part of 14A where they shall not serve, mechanisms unspecified

Applies to sitting Congressmen, no? Or at least to those about to take office?

[wnylib]

24. Applies to people who have taken an oath of office

prior to an act of insurrection. So it would not apply to newly elected people who had not yet taken an oath before the insurrection.

[duhneece]

6. Couy Griffin can never run for public office. No conviction

https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/press-releases/judge-removes-couy-griffin-from-office-for-engaging-in-the-january-6-insurrection/

[markodochartaigh]

8. What's justice for

that two-bit, tin-horn toadie such be justice up and down the line.

[forthemiddle]

16. He was convicted

He was convicted of a misdemeanor by a Judge.

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrC_Dehy6FjI0QA_wcPxQt.;_ylu=Y29sbwNiZjEEcG9zAzIEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Ny/RV=2/RE=1671576610/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.cnn.com%2f2022%2f03%2f22%2fpolitics%2fcouy-griffin-verdict-january-6-trial%2findex.html/RK=2/RS=caDfjtImMwDzSpLBplclAZOEWsw-

[duhneece]

33. You're right. nt

[Samrob]

9. Actually nothing needs to be proven. Voters have the power within their hands on every level of

to keep anyone out of office. In the final analysis, the voters are at fault if any of these GOP criminals are elected to or remain in office.

[inthewind21]

15. Exactly!

[AKwannabe]

22. Same as we have the power to elect?

Then the electoral college can overturn the popular OR the SC can overturn the popular???

We. Have. No. Power. The rich have the power. Period

[NullTuples]

30. Currently voters in 22 states voted to keep the party of sedition in power.

[Fiendish Thingy]

10. Without a criminal conviction, nobody is going to get disqualified. Nt

[Scrivener7]

11. We agree on this!

[gab13by13]

13. That is also Andrew Weissmann's opinion.

[Beastly Boy]

17. Not necessarily.

The placement of a disqualified candidate on the ballot is enough to trigger a lawsuit, regardless of prior criminal conviction. The courts will then decide the merits of the challenge, again, regardless of prior criminal conviction.

[Fiendish Thingy]

21. If that is the case, the be prepared for Biden to be disqualified in several red states. Nt

[Beastly Boy]

26. Challenged, yes. But that will happen anyway

Disqualified? You need constitutional grounds for it.

[gab13by13]

12. Andrew Weissmann thinks this law is on shaky grounds.

Weissmann gave several reasons why, including that Trump may just ignore it and get away with it.

[speak easy]

32. Weissmann is not Constitutional lawyer.

[Escurumbele]

14. For the health of Democracy in this country there must be justice, must include trump in jail

Anything else will assure that another corrupt and crazy repeats, with lessons learned, what they previous ones tried, and next time they can succeed.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

18. Excellent! Made me think.... Did anything happen on those Capitol

Tours that were so suspicious? And what about the House member texts that seemed to be giving vital info to insurrectionists during their invasion?

[lambchopp59]

19. Context matters.

"Fight like hell" to a crowd with undeniable penchant for wanton violence. After rallies where Lardbucket shouted "beat the crap out of him" and they did. After mealymouthing non-condemnations of murderers. After fomenting so much hatred in his base every which way he could confabulate, instilling fear "you won't have a country anymore"...
Dog dammit. Verse After verse After verse of the "Go killem" songs, terrorist acts damn near daily now and we're just supposed to sit there and say "oh well?"
I just helped adjudicate someone's remark that went a bit over the top about this sort of thing, and I felt sort of bad doing so because there are about a dozen similar remarks I keep bottled up. Something something the anti-woke something could be that way permanently using their favorite toys something. Was that over the top? I can never tell.
Frankly though, as cultist as these idiots have become, I not be surprised if some of them...

[Pepsidog]

20. Tribe on "The Last Word" suggested that the House vote to impeach TFG is sufficient grounds to

exclude Trump given the bipartisan comments of Republicans who said while Trump was responsible for inciting the insurrection it made no sense to remove him from office as his term was up anyway.

I suspect the courts could conclude that if it was the intent of Congress to bar TFG from future office they would have convicted him in the Senate. So we have the Jan 6 committee's investigation and findings of fact along with a unanimous bi-partisan vote to criminally refer him to the DOJ along with his 2nd impeachment by the House, sure seems like enough to invoke the 14th Amend to bar TFG from future office.

[Demsrule86]

23. The trouble is there are an entire set of constitutional 'rules' that govern the election of a

president. Thus, I do not believe the 14th can be used to disqualify Trump. Although, I hope I am wrong.

[TeamProg]

25. K&R Thanks for posting. n/t

[republianmushroom]

27. It wasn't just trump.

[crickets]

28. 👆👆

There are people still in Congress who were involved and who should not be allowed to keep their seats either.

[NullTuples]

31. What's to stop MAGA from using it the same way?

"citizens could...go to their state election officials to argue that [Democrat candidate] is prohibited from holding office and so from appearing on the ballot. There need not be a criminal conviction or even criminal charges"

This is why the current case in front of the US Supreme Court is so vitally important to our democracy. If states can simply decide not to put a federal candidate on the ballot, there may well be nothing we can do about it. Instant stolen Electoral College votes.

Currently, the GOP controls 22 states. Dems control 17. Ten states have divided state governments.