Raskin Says Trump Could Still Be Barred from Public Office

[DonViejo]

Source: PoliticalWire



February 18, 2021 at 8:37 am EST By Taegan Goddard

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), the lead House manager for President Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial, told ABC News that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment could still be used to bar the former president from running for future office.

The 14th Amendment bars any public official who swore an oath to protect the Constitution from holding office if they “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against it or gave “aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

###

Read more: https://politicalwire.com/2021/02/18/raskin-says-trump-could-still-be-barred-from-public-office/

[lastlib]

1. OK, get on it, Jamie!

Time's a-wastin'!

[NCjack]

21. Do it. Now!

[lark]

2. If it only requires a simple majority - go for it!

Otherwise don't waste the time if it requires 2/3 to convict because repugs are too much onboard the drumpf fascist train.

[mitch96]

9. "if it requires 2/3 to convict". Or wait till 2022 and see if we have 2/3's...

I can dream can't I?
m

[lark]

26. I like your dream.

It's a good one.

[niyad]

3. FORMER president, political wire.

[lagomorph777]

4. This should definitely be pursued.

I know some DUers are against it, but it would be unforgiveable not to try.

[magicarpet]

5. Wonderful approach,... freeze him out of any further office of public trust,...

.... then civil & criminal litigation until he is destitute, bankrupt, and confined to prison.

[NYC Liberal]

6. It would require a conviction in court first.

So let’s see.

[bullimiami]

7. no where in the language of section 3 does it say anything about courts or a conviction.

trump has clearly violated the language of the section.

it also does not specify how it would be enforced.
the language states he is already disqualified as are many other current officeholders in congress and elsewhere.

i think someone should take this to court and attempt to disqualify everyone who violated the constitution.
it would have to get to scotus.

[lagomorph777]

12. +1 I can't find anything about courts in there.

[NYC Liberal]

17. Cool. So next time the Republicans control both houses they can

just disqualify our candidates from ever holding office with a simple majority vote. All they have to do is find some vague accusation that could be twisted to be construed as seditious. Sounds legit.

What is the purpose of impeachment if a person can be removed and disqualified with a simple majority vote?

[bullimiami]

22. impeachment is one thing. a14s3 is totally separate. unless or until the court "interprets" it

the language, which looks pretty clear to me, is what it is.

it is without a doubt subject to abuse as are many laws and other clearly written sections of the constitution, as has been demonstrated over the last 4 years quite clearly.

[dsc]

8. not necessarily

Jefferson Davis was banned from office before being charged and actually argued he then couldn't be charged due to double jeopardy. That issue wasn't decided since Johnson issued a pardon.

[melm00se]

15. The Constitution is really vague on that section

There are arguments to be made from both sides especially from the amendment that guarantees due process and equal protection under the law.

It will truly be scary if Trump were to be disqualified under the 14th Amendment without a concurrent guilty verdict or some other judgment that adheres to due process. Wishing for just a bar without those falls squarely into the "Be careful what you wish for" category as it can come back and bite you on the ass when you least expect or want it.

[NYC Liberal]

18. The Republicans could have banned Hillary from office on the pretext of "BENGHAZI!!1"

You’re right. It’s a slippery slope.

[bullimiami]

23. without a doubt they could have tried, and it would been challenged and gone through the courts.

given a few more of these insane republicans in the congress and you may see something like it.

[melm00se]

30. and challenged

and, ironically, overturned using another section of the 14th.

[marie999]

10. Does not apply to presidents.

No, the president is not an officer of the United States.

The president is in the impeachment Article 2 Section 4 and not in the 14th Amendment. Why would they leave the president out of the 14th Amendment when Congress is in it. The 14th Amendment even lists state legislature and judicial officers, but it doesn't bother to list the president. Also in the Supreme Court case of Free Enterprise Fund V. Public Accounting Oversight Bid, Chief Justice Roberts wrote "The people do not vote for the Officers of The United States. Rather Officers of the United States are appointed exclusively pursuant to Article 2 Section 2 procedures.

[lagomorph777]

13. DOJ seems to disagree.

As the Supreme Court explained in Buckley:
We think that the term “Officers of the United States” as used in Art. II, defined to include “all persons who can be said to hold an office under the government,” is a term intended to have substantive meaning. We think its fair import is that any appointee exercising significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States is an “Officer of the United States”

https://www.justice.gov/file/451191/download

[marie999]

14. So the DOJ disagrees with the Chief Justice.

[lagomorph777]

27. Interesting tension. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office..."

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States"

If you hold an Office of the United States, you are an OFFICER of the United States.

Semantic games and the opinions of those who don't give a damn about the country (ROBBERts), don't change that simple fact.

[marie999]

28. If the 14th Amendment is used,

it will be interesting to see how The Supreme Court votes. I believe that almost all, if not all, the Justices will vote by how they interpret the Constitution. I don't believe they will vote one way just because it is Trump.

[lagomorph777]

29. I hope you're right.

[marie999]

31. I found another Supreme Court case that shows,

the president is not an officer of the United States. Buckley v. Valeo defines "officer of the United States" as appointees and excludes officials from the definition of officer of the United States. That is why the 14th Amendment has to list members of Congress so that they are covered.

[bucolic_frolic]

11. That was my reading of it too

What's not clear is how it plays out.

Pass now, and Trump will challenge it in court.

Let states go to court to block him based on House Managers' presentation. Likely to get inconsistent rulings in different jurisdictions and proceed to SCOTUS.

But I am a big fan of not waiting. You have a 50+1 majority. Pass legislation like its water. You may not always have 50-50.

[LiberalFighter]

16. Make it happen

[FakeNoose]

19. It sounds like Raskin is suggesting criminal charges for Chump?

Is he saying that if Chump were to be convicted of engaging in insurrection or rebellion, then he WOULD be barred from public office?

Not sure if I'm reading this correctly.

[bullimiami]

24. i would think a conviction is a dropkick for the 14th.

[Bayard]

20. Would that mean McConnell could put his money where his mouth is this time,

Instead of just talking about it? He could drag quite a few others along with him.

Woohoo! This is my 11,000 post. I'm a big DU'er now!

[oldsoftie]

25. He'll be banned by not being able to get enough VOTES.

Plus, he's going to move on to his bigger scam; getting some of the 75 million to send him MORE money. He can get a billion without much effort. Just watch.