General Discussion

Lonestarblue

(10,391 posts)

39. I looked up the text of the 14th Amendment and it certainly does not specify conviction.

Wed Dec 20, 2023, 09:22 AM

Dec 2023

Here it is.

“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.”

I think it may have been Lawrence Tribe who wrote that the 14th did preclude Trump from the presidency because having sworn to uphold the Constitution, he then engaged in actions of insurrection because he refused to accept the legal vote against him and implemented plans to overturn that vote and avoid leaving office. And on January 6, he definitely gave aid and comfort to those who physically rebelled against the US government—aid by refusing to call in the National Guard and allowing the rampage to go on for hours and comfort in that video he made praising them and telling then he loved them.

If the Court had any intent to help preserve our democracy, they would uphold the Colorado decision, which would then give other states the option to remove Trump.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

169 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

No way will THIS Supreme Court uphold the Colorado Supreme Court decision. I think we are deluding ourselves [View all] JohnSJ Dec 2023 OP

You don't have confidence in these "strict constitutionalists" strictly adhering to the constitution? Hmm. bullimiami Dec 2023 #1

Nope, and their ruling won't even touch that because they will say he has never been found guilty of an insurrection. JohnSJ Dec 2023 #5

The Constitution doesn't say gab13by13 Dec 2023 #13

That may be, but I think that is exactly how the 6 right wing judges will rule, that he hasn't been found guilty of an JohnSJ Dec 2023 #17

I disagree, gab13by13 Dec 2023 #28

I think that is exactly what they will rule on, due process. Trump hasn't been found guilty of an insurrection, JohnSJ Dec 2023 #46

Yah I read one take like that. Something about section 5 of the 14th amendment... AnrothElf Dec 2023 #62

I think you're spot on r.e. Section 5. maxsolomon Dec 2023 #135

I don't read section 5 applying to section 3 Buckeyeblue Dec 2023 #166

But it does insist on due process FBaggins Dec 2023 #30

Section 3 is not a punishment, it's an additional qualification. Hermit-The-Prog Dec 2023 #43

A distinction without a difference FBaggins Dec 2023 #80

It's clear you haven't read the decision. Hermit-The-Prog Dec 2023 #82

I find that to be the case with many of those posting... And this is not the topic to hlthe2b Dec 2023 #167

The age or citizenship question can be resolved without a court case... brooklynite Dec 2023 #125

Exactly correct - as well as citizenship FBaggins Dec 2023 #128

I looked up the text of the 14th Amendment and it certainly does not specify conviction. Lonestarblue Dec 2023 #39

Lonestarblue......... Upthevibe Dec 2023 #63

Agreed............................ Lovie777 Dec 2023 #70

I also note the 14th says nothing about running or appearing on a ballot... CaptainTruth Dec 2023 #101

IOW an election-denying State official can make the same arbitrary judgment about Joe Biden? brooklynite Dec 2023 #126

Joe Biden hasn't done anything to violate the 14th Amendment. Lonestarblue Dec 2023 #146

Seriously! The attempt by some to turn a months-long intense review of a clear record Prairie Gates Dec 2023 #147

What CO election-denying state official was that? dpibel Dec 2023 #153

I'm saying there are 49 other States... brooklynite Dec 2023 #162

" the same arbitrary judgment" dpibel Dec 2023 #163

Yes, I consider the Colorado decision to be "arbitrary" brooklynite Dec 2023 #164

It's not a criminal matter dpibel Dec 2023 #168

I think you are missing something. The CO lower court judge essentially flashman13 Dec 2023 #100

No Conviction Needed, not even a criminal charge Prendy Dec 2023 #110

You may be right here. BUT bluestarone Dec 2023 #144

So called "strict constitutionalists" have violated that principle too often to take seriously msfiddlestix Dec 2023 #84

This court is highly transactional, not scholarly getagrip_already Dec 2023 #98

One would think so they have a powerful interest in finding him indelible, but they seem to defy that logic msfiddlestix Dec 2023 #169

Would the Colorado decision keep Congressional insurrectionists Emile Dec 2023 #2

Was wondering that as well Emile. Duncanpup Dec 2023 #4

If that was the argument, yes, but I think the SC will argue that he has not been found guilty of an insurrection, so JohnSJ Dec 2023 #6

I hate to say it, but I think secretly the Congressional insurrectionists will be their reason he stays on the ballot. Emile Dec 2023 #9

The "aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" part should disqualify the entire Republican party. sop Dec 2023 #55

Works for me. MOMFUDSKI Dec 2023 #10

Are there any congressional insurrectionists donheld Dec 2023 #157

I'm thinking if the SC rules with Colorado their ruling will be nationwide. Emile Dec 2023 #165

Tired of the "due process" argument Walleye Dec 2023 #3

I just think that this RW majority SC will rule on that basis. JohnSJ Dec 2023 #8

They are saying don't disqualify him, beat him at the ballot box Walleye Dec 2023 #21

Many folks here said no way he would ever be indicted malaise Dec 2023 #7

This isn't the issue. The issue is should he be on the ballot for a crime he hasn't been found guilty of? In fact, JohnSJ Dec 2023 #12

The Constitution does not say gab13by13 Dec 2023 #15

He has publicly claimed his coup; he claims his goons are political prisoner malaise Dec 2023 #20

YES! LOL, REMINDER: Many saying that the USSC will definitely overturn this decision Prairie Gates Dec 2023 #27

Was a marvelous thing to behold - THIS! 😀 malaise Dec 2023 #31

These effers make pretzels look straight. CrispyQ Dec 2023 #54

LOL malaise Dec 2023 #86

Occam's Razor gab13by13 Dec 2023 #32

All depends on whose money influences them best... MiHale Dec 2023 #11

Maybe I worded it incorrectly. I think they will rule he is NOT immune from prosecution for a crime. In other words, JohnSJ Dec 2023 #14

I needed a better coffee fix. MiHale Dec 2023 #16

Me too JohnSJ Dec 2023 #18

So Clarence gets a new house and a free vacation in Paris. 3Hotdogs Dec 2023 #52

The fascist court will never in a million years rule gab13by13 Dec 2023 #19

I agree, and I also think they will rule he remains on the Colorado ballot JohnSJ Dec 2023 #22

So do I gab13by13 Dec 2023 #33

Don't harsh our mellow! No negative waves so early in the morning! Liberal In Texas Dec 2023 #23

+++ JohnSJ Dec 2023 #25

100% agree. n/t CousinIT Dec 2023 #24

It all depends on what Leonard Leo Bettie Dec 2023 #26

This is the answer. CrispyQ Dec 2023 #73

Agreed. I suspect big business knows tfg hurts their bottom line. lindysalsagal Dec 2023 #81

Why is scotus getting involved in state politics Fullduplexxx Dec 2023 #29

That question needs to be asked to Neil Gorsuch, gab13by13 Dec 2023 #35

Technically we don't know if they will accept this case, though I think they will. I think the reason why they will JohnSJ Dec 2023 #37

Whatever the USSC rules will apply to all 50 states. Not just CO. (Just making a note.) ancianita Dec 2023 #41

Yes, and that is why I think they will base their ruling on Due Process, that trump has not been found guilty of an JohnSJ Dec 2023 #44

You already said elsewhere that a conviction is not necessary. So did Neal Katyal. If ancianita Dec 2023 #49

I didn't say that, someone else did. I just think that this SC will rule on the basis of due process in regard to JohnSJ Dec 2023 #51

Fine. I get it. I thought it was you. But Katyal has said the same. He's the boss. About that due process, ancianita Dec 2023 #76

I actually hope my speculation is wrong and he is kept off the ballot, I just think the US SC will punt on this, and JohnSJ Dec 2023 #79

At the least he will definitely be kept on the ballot in CO, if the court doesn't hear the case. ancianita Dec 2023 #88

Yes, if they go by this, "not indicted" thing they will virtually make the amendment null and void Maraya1969 Dec 2023 #111

On the other hand do we want Repub States deciding which Dem's they think are guilty also.. EX500rider Dec 2023 #143

Elections are part state, part federal. LeftInTX Dec 2023 #93

They wouldn't be (assuming they take it) FBaggins Dec 2023 #95

If you have different states supreme courts coming up with different decisions, how can they not? nt Quixote1818 Dec 2023 #112

States run their own elections those that will allow it will those that dont wont Fullduplexxx Dec 2023 #114

Because it's a federal election n/t Polybius Dec 2023 #121

States run federal elections ... it's still a state matter Fullduplexxx Dec 2023 #127

Sure Polybius Dec 2023 #161

Depends whose money wants Trump out jcgoldie Dec 2023 #34

That's probably the best (and most optimistic) way to look at this. sop Dec 2023 #60

I'm not so sure the corporate wing is more powerful than the Maga anymore Walleye Dec 2023 #87

I believe Trump will be easy to beat in 2024. JohnnyRingo Dec 2023 #36

IT HAS TO. Or else it refutes the actual black and white Constitution. It has to. ancianita Dec 2023 #38

I think this SC will overturn the Colorado SC ruling using that trump has not been found guilty of an insurrection. JohnSJ Dec 2023 #42

It CANNOT overturn the factual finding of that court's ruling. It is a factual ruling. Three reasons: ancianita Dec 2023 #45

Of course it can FBaggins Dec 2023 #91

Nope. Those findings of fact were not what the 3 COSC liberals based their dissent on. It was about 'sufficient' ancianita Dec 2023 #99

"Sufficient due process" IS a critique of the findings of fact FBaggins Dec 2023 #104

It was sufficient, and filed in a federal district court. Evidence of rebellion AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION was presented, ancianita Dec 2023 #123

Do I seriously believe they overlooked the need for a jury trial? FBaggins Dec 2023 #131

Link their dissent. I gotta read it to believe it. ancianita Dec 2023 #137

You keep posting as though you had read the ruling FBaggins Dec 2023 #141

My bad. I only got through the first 50 or so pages. I've been renovating and got distracted. Still, no excuse. ancianita Dec 2023 #155

Agree. They may even rule as they did for Bush vs. Gore, that the ruling should not be used as precedent Freethinker65 Dec 2023 #40

But then what if he is found guilty in the GA case? Maraya1969 Dec 2023 #47

Isn't that entirely a state issue? The Colorado SC wades into the US Constitution, Article 7 as their justification JohnSJ Dec 2023 #50

His charges in Georgia are very similar to an insurection except there is no violence Maraya1969 Dec 2023 #115

David frum said that the other GOP candidates' reactions ecstatic Dec 2023 #48

We need a majority, not unanimous. Roberts? + ? RoeVWade Dec 2023 #53

The section is Self-Executing mymomwasright Dec 2023 #56

Clear and convincing evidence supports the CO Supreme Court factual findings Ponietz Dec 2023 #57

It will probably happen after they disqualify him because of his body odor dalton99a Dec 2023 #58

Couy Griffin was never convicted of insurrection but Court removed him and he can't hold office duhneece Dec 2023 #59

The Constitution doesn't mention a guilty verdict. mzmolly Dec 2023 #61

I believe that is what the US SC will use as their reasoning to overturn the Colorado SC decision. In other words, they JohnSJ Dec 2023 #66

I'm unsure how they can reason that. mzmolly Dec 2023 #132

But it's not criminal, it's a civil finding of fact. scipan Dec 2023 #139

They are going to have to do some contortions to say the national gov't Cuthbert Allgood Dec 2023 #64

I think they will say that the State of Colorado is basing their ruling on Article 7 of the U.S. Constitution, and JohnSJ Dec 2023 #72

I don't even have the hope that you do hurple Dec 2023 #65

If they rule that he is immune from prosecution, then they are ruling that a President is above the law, and that JohnSJ Dec 2023 #68

Not Really hurple Dec 2023 #124

The faint hopes are with bucolic_frolic Dec 2023 #67

Clarence will vote how he is told to vote, gab13by13 Dec 2023 #134

Alas, I believe you are correct and here's why. Hugin Dec 2023 #69

This Court ruled against Тяцмp in all the "stolen election" cases KS Toronado Dec 2023 #71

That is a different issue. I think they will base this decision on Colorado's SC interpretation of the 14th amendment, JohnSJ Dec 2023 #74

My glass is half full KS Toronado Dec 2023 #90

So, Trump wasn't given any opportunity to defend himself in Colorado? gab13by13 Dec 2023 #136

Thomas should recuse himself; Roberts should uphold the the ruling. A 4-4 tie would leave the SCOCO decision intact. LeftyLucie Dec 2023 #75

By that logic if the Jan 6 DC trial finds him guilty, then he could be removed nationwide JT45242 Dec 2023 #77

You have to remember tRunp's 3 appointees have life tenure. They flashman13 Dec 2023 #78

I think we can write off Thomas and Alito, because they are completely compromised. It will be Roberts and JohnSJ Dec 2023 #83

I agree. Gorsuch is a wild card. flashman13 Dec 2023 #89

Rethink that calculus FBaggins Dec 2023 #94

This appears to follow a certain logic, and could be convincingly argued, I think, but what do I know? Joinfortmill Dec 2023 #85

Am I alone in thinking this episode will end up as a footnote? Doc Sportello Dec 2023 #92

Probably right on that Prairie Gates Dec 2023 #102

I agree. This will be stayed on January 4th or when he files an appeal. Read page 9 of the announcement 33taw Dec 2023 #96

It's right there.... LeftInTX Dec 2023 #103

I fully believe this will be appealed and Trump will be on the ballot until the USSC makes a decision. 33taw Dec 2023 #118

maybe not. But think of the uproar when the Trump infused SC bigtree Dec 2023 #97

Succinct and perfect 🎯 Arazi Dec 2023 #129

Feels a little early in the day to put on my Internet Constitution Expert cap Sympthsical Dec 2023 #105

Thanks for your in depth pondering. Hugin Dec 2023 #108

It's what the 14th Amendment says. Kid Berwyn Dec 2023 #106

This disqualification should be in state constitutions. CaptainTruth Dec 2023 #107

Quite the opposite, SCOTUS has historically held that states have very little power over eligibility of federal tritsofme Dec 2023 #142

Harlan Crow, the Kochs, etc., who have turned on trump MIGHT tell Thomas, etc., to end trump's hold on GOP. Silent Type Dec 2023 #109

LAW or POWER? orthoclad Dec 2023 #113

Speculate away but only the billionaire masters of the SCOTUS 6 matter Arazi Dec 2023 #116

Roberts just might surprise everyone. appleannie1 Dec 2023 #117

Agree, but I'll enjoy the feel good feeling while I can. republianmushroom Dec 2023 #119

I'll one better ya: Polybius Dec 2023 #120

I had thought like you, but then noticed that Congress only freed Jefferson Davis from disqualification in 1978 muriel_volestrangler Dec 2023 #122

Davis and Lee were not US citizens when they died. This bill restored their citizenship LeftInTX Dec 2023 #130

It does indeed create a precedent - but not one that works in this case FBaggins Dec 2023 #133

Davis and Lee were not even US citizens, so there's that... LeftInTX Dec 2023 #138

But the Section 3 of the 14th Amendment mentioned is the specific section under discussion for Trump muriel_volestrangler Dec 2023 #145

They were dead for almost 100 years. It was a goodwill gesture. Not being used to determine if they can run for office. LeftInTX Dec 2023 #148

section 3 of amendment XIV of the Constitution does not mention citizenship; it mentions the right to run for office muriel_volestrangler Dec 2023 #150

I guess it all depends on what Harlan Crow and all the other owners want. Vinca Dec 2023 #140

While I'd love to see Agolf Tweetler off the political map TheKentuckian Dec 2023 #149

Yep PBateman70 Dec 2023 #151

So what are the polls telling you? What the record of the last three years should tell you is TFG has not ... marble falls Dec 2023 #152

It might TexasDem69 Dec 2023 #154

If the SC rules he is off the ballot in Colorado, the other states will soon follow JohnSJ Dec 2023 #158

The other states would have to follow some process TexasDem69 Dec 2023 #159

If they rule he is off the ballot because he was part of the insurrection, that ruling JohnSJ Dec 2023 #160

A 6-3 decision would just be more BootinUp Dec 2023 #156