Even though Trump won last election, isn't he still in violation of the 14th Amendment?

[kentuck]

Did he not incite a riot against our government?

Does the 14th Amendment disappear just because the Supreme Court ruled that Colorado had to put him on their ballot before the last election? Did that settle the issue. Did that repeal the 14th Amendment?

This Supreme Court has been wrong on so many occasions.

[Karadeniz]

1. Yes

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Not until the USSC says so.

And even if it did, he's installed.

How are we going to dislodge him?

[Buckeyeblue]

3. Congress could uphold the constitution and impeach and convict him

But they won't. The framers of the 14th amendment fucked up by not including a specific enforcement mechanism. So essentially section three is worthless. If it was written on toilet paper, it would only be good for one thing...

[RandomNumbers]

4. The weird thing about laws written by humans

is that it is up to humans to enforce them.

Your statement is true, but remains irrelevant until there are sufficient humans with sufficient power to actually enforce any consequence.

[bucolic_frolic]

5. The point of the 14th Amendment was to give future generations broad means

and criteria to eject, reject, remove, prevent insurrectionists from holding political office in the USA. The Reconstruction generation of Congress didn't write a law and define criteria for removal, require conviction, or make it inherently political. They trusted what the public's eyes can see and remember, what anyone with half a brain can see and remember. Attacks on the US Government. It was clearly followed in the Reconstruction decades to about 1905. Accuse someone of trying to run, or winning and holding office and they could be challenged with accusations of being an insurrectionist. Then Congress voted on it. 2/3 was required to reinstate the miscreant, 1/3 to prevent his holding office. Talk about minority rights!
They wanted to prevent Civil War. They gave posterity the tools. But we couldn't interpret them or act. We had no idea how a minority could confront insurrection and bring it to a vote. No one would have listened.


The Roberts Court failed the test. Total fail.

[stopdiggin]

6. 'constitutional' is what the supreme court

(or lower court if it lodges there first) decides that it is. And that really hasn't changed.

I know the question was rhetorical. But, at the same time - the 'constitutional' thing gets tossed around pretty freely ...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -