This national embarrassment must not be allowed to continue.

[lees1975]

https://signalpress.blogspot.com/2023/07/this-national-embarrassment-must-not-be.html

This is more than just politics, more than a test of the limits of free speech and freedom of conscience, more that just a symptom of a bigger political, and educational, problem that now exists within the United States of America. This is a national embarrassment. I'm talking about Trump's campaign to be elected to a second, non-consecutive term as President of the United States.

There's not a specific mechanism in the 14th Amendment for prohibiting those who engage in insurrection against the United States, such as a conviction in a court, from being eligible for public office. It's initial application simply involved using the record of service to the Confederate States, whether it was in the military or in government, to restrict potential office holders. We had a Congressional investigation into the January 6th insurrection, complete with thousands of pages of documentation and evidence, which identified the former President as its instigator, with the intention of overturning the results of a legitimate election, fraudulent attempts to appoint fake electors with fake documents, and the complete subversion of the Constitution, all acts which, by definition, meet the standards of the 14th amendment.

So what is there preventing any federal court from also indicting him based on the congressional investigation's evidence? And, forgive me for thinking in simple terms, but doesn't Congress' investigation establish the former President as being guilty of insurrection? The constitution does not specify that a jury trial is necessary to do so. When this amendment was passed and enforced, trials were not held for former Confederates to restrict them from office, all that was necessary was proof that they had supported the Confederate States of America. We have that same proof, in the congressional investigation. Who, in government, has the authority to declare the former President guilty of insurrection, based on the congressional investigation, and therefore ineligible for office. Then let's see if Congress can come up with the two thirds vote necessary to get him off the hook.

[lees1975]

1. And I'll add this...

If the Congressional investigation can't establish that fact, then what was all of that effort, time, money spent and all of the television publicity worth?

[wnylib]

6. The purpose of the House hearings about J6

Last edited Wed Jul 19, 2023, 01:58 PM - Edit history (1)

was NOT to determine the guilt or innocence of Trump regarding insurrection.

The purpose was to determine what legislative actions could be taken to prevent or at least minimize the chances of something like that happening again. They made recommendations, for example, on changes in the security system for the Capitol.

They examined how J6 was possible, again in order to prevent future events like that. In the course of their investigation, they uncovered evidence of potential crimes by Trump and several people around him. But determining guilt for those people was not in the power of Congress, so they referred what they had uncovered to DOJ so that DOJ could pursue investigations, criminal charges, and trials if necessary.

[lees1975]

8. They handed DOJ evidence of the incitement of the January 6th insurrection.

The lack of clarity in the 14th is how is the determination made, and how is it enforced. Whether they intended to do it or not, the House hearings did determine Trump's guilt, and they make that clear, in so many words, in their written report Surely, we have the legal minds on the Democratic side to find a way to apply and enforce the 14th amendment. Obviously, indictments and a conviction would do the trick. Exploring the possibility of anything else to stop his campaign and prevent him from running for office, including taking the conclusions from the congressional investigations, and court-ordering his campaign to stop, or court-ordering his name to be removed from state ballots, is worth a try.

[wnylib]

11. You're all over the place on this.

First you say that lack of clarity in the 14th amendment is how the determination of guilt or innocence is made and how it is enforced. Since when? By what precedent in history?

Then you say that the House hearings did determine Trump's guilt, made clear in their report. Also made clear in their report is that they do not have the means of investigation that is available to DOJ, so they are referring their RECOMMENDATIONS (not legal decisions) to DOJ.

Although I despise Trump, I do not despise the legal principle of innocent until proven guilty. I personally think that Trump is guilty of much more than present and future likely indictments will charge him with. But, in our system, what I personally think means nothing. Even what the House concluded at the end of their hearings is not definitive evidence of Trump's guilt. The House report indicates that they expect DOJ to follow through with further investigations for additional evidence and testimony for use in formal charges and trials.

You seem to be advocating for the abolishment of a trial system to replace it with a "question and hunch" system. Ask some questions about someone's guilt and then decide it based on hunches about where evidence might lead.

[wnylib]

2. Think about what you are saying.

Last edited Wed Jul 19, 2023, 12:53 PM - Edit history (1)

Do you really believe that Congressional hearings can establish someone's guilt or innocence? Are you advocating to abolish our court system?

Should a Congressional hearing determine whether Hunter Biden is guilty of all the things that they are trying to pin on him? Or that his father, our president, was somehow guilty by association?

What about the multiple Benghazi investigations of Hillary Clinton? Should those hearings and investigations in Congress have determined whether Hillary was eligible to run for office in 2016?

I shudder at what you are suggesting. You suggest that we replace courts with Congressional hearings to decide whether someone is guilty of crimes. Even with the impeachment power given to the House in the Constitution, the results of the House hearings and charges have to be tried in the Senate to decide if the impeached person is guilty.

[stopdiggin]

4. +1. well said. -(nt)-

[lees1975]

9. Apples and oranges.

We're talking about a specific indication of insurrection against the government of the United States, and we're not necessarily talking about an adjudication, we're talking about a standard used in the past to determine the eligibility for elected office of candidates who, by definition, participated in insurrection.

Separate the crimes involved from the act of insurrection itself, declaring a march on the capitol for the purpose of changing the course of action of the counting of electoral votes. Would it take a DOJ investigation, indictments, a trial and a conviction to stop an attack by rioters on a military base?

[wnylib]

14. Your first paragraph makes no sense.

Neither does the apples and oranges comment.

You advocate bypassing the legal system for determination of legal eligibility to run for office regarding a failed insurrection. Skipping the courts is an autocratic move toward lawlessness.

You want to treat the failed coup attempt as an act of war and respond to it that way. You are pushing the RW talking point about civil war.

I am done wasting time on your nonsense.

'Bye.

[stopdiggin]

3. is he going to be kept off the ballot in 50 states?

on the basis of the congressional investigation you point to? Clearly, that answer is, "No." Then the second gateway would be would Congress refuse to swear in and seat (on the basis of 'insurrection' and the 14th) a candidate that had secured the necessary number of electoral votes in the election that follows? I think the answer there is, "also very, very unlikely."

Couple other things. Are we sure that the 'congressional investigation' - "establishes the former President as being guilty of insurrection." That language used? And - I think a federal court 'receives' an indictment, that is handed up by another agency. Is such an indictment being tendered (or prepared) - by either Congress or Justice?

Despite your argument - I think conditions (and the law) would require a clear finding - meaning conviction in court - on the charges that would trigger the 14th. And I don't think the "well, we have ample 'evidence' " argument (without that conviction) is going to go anywhere. (outside of maybe discussion groups)

[GenXer47]

5. it was the aftermath of a war

It seems to me that the winners of a war get to pretty much write, enforce, and interpret the rules. This amendment was a post-Civil War thing. Nobody was in the mood to nitpick over guilt or innocence when it was undeniably obvious who the insurrectionists were.
Like so many things in the Constitution, this was poorly conceived. Rushed, and not explicit enough. In a time when propaganda lived on the few sheets of newspaper and the mouth of a guy literally standing on a soapbox on the streets of Boston. There just wasn't this ability to cast doubt on every single fact.
All that being said, Biden made a grave error when he didn't have Trump's helicopter diverted the moment it reached cruising altitude. If it was insurrection, and it was - then it was not a crime. It was an act of war, and it could have been dealt with as such right then and there.

[wnylib]

7. It was a prudent no brainer

for Congress to deny insurrectionists the opportunity to run the nation after trying to destroy it. That's a universal principle of governance.

I cannot make sense out of your last paragraph. What helicopter? When? Whose? Literal or metaphorical?

You might call insurrection an act of war, but that does not preclude it from being a crime, too.

You said, "It was an act of war, and it could have been dealt with as such right then and there." By whom? Trump was president on 1/6/21. Who was going to deal with Trump's "act of war" and put a stop to it right then and there?

[lees1975]

10. Here's the text of the section of the 14th pertaining to office holders.

Section 3.
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.

So, there is no determination made here regarding how those who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion would be charged. So how would this be determined in a case where Congress held a hearing and defined what happened on January 6th as an insurrection.

And the only determination in the amendment regarding a vote of congress is one to "remove the disability," not to establish it.

This is one of those, "for the sake of discussion issues." How is this determination made in the current context?

[anciano]

12. A question here .....

the last paragraph of the 14th Amendment reads: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
Would not legislation by Congress constitute "a specific mechanism" of enforcement?

[lees1975]

13. Several legal sources I have read say that the amendment does not make clear exactly

how the fourteenth amendment would be enforced.

FindLaw which is a website that provides answers to constitutional questions among other info, says that Congress can enforce this amendment with a simple majority vote. They distinguish enforcement of the 14th amendment's provisions from an impeachment, because criminal charges may or may not apply to the insurrection. This is why I think Congress could, or could have done this when they completed their investigation into Trump's insurrection incitement. Their ruling would have been subject to court review.

https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment14/annotation15.html

[Phoenix1960]

15. Dark Money

After research I think big corporations via donations are behind this. One term is oligarchy.I am having issues myself with this. Who is controlling all this and what will the outcome be? Are the consequences going to be able to mitigated?

[Skittles]

16. THE MAN NEVER CONCEDED

WHY IS HE ALLOWED TO RUN AGAIN

[lees1975]

17. As a follow up, Congress can indeed pass legislation barring a candidate from office based on their

investigation and conclusion that the candidate had incited or participated in insurrection.

I checked some additiona resources, including a Constitutional Law college course textbook, and speaking to a classmate of mine who was in Constitutional Law with me and is now a practicing attorney, points to Congress as the first step in enforcing the 14th amendment. Anything in the limits of the Constitution can be enforced first with passage of legislation to establish what's to be enforced, and then the President's signature for it to become law. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is an example of legislation passed to strengthen the provisions of the 14th which extended protections of the Bill of Rights to African Americans when the Supreme Court wasn't helping with that during reconstruction.

So, to render the former failed President 45 ineligible to run, due to the finding that he incited the insurrection of January 6th as the result of a seditious conspiracy would require an act of Congress, passed by a simple majority. Would that have been possible before the 2022 Mid-terms? Maybe. Such a bill was introduced by Rep. David Cicilline, and sponsored by 40 other members of the House, on December 15, 2022. So not only was this possible, the process was started. Kudos to them. The bill should have included the names of all others who endorsed, participated, or who, by their words, have not condemned, the attack on January 6th. I have seen no explanation of why this didn't get pushed through sooner, once the investigation was complete and Democrats were in control of both houses.

Then this ridiculous nonsense of a second Trump campaign would be over.