Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bucolic_frolic

(48,570 posts)
31. To answer 14A query - Reconstruction Era precedents that are now lost or irrelevant
Sun Dec 1, 2024, 01:43 PM
Dec 1

You must return to Reconstruction to see how the US Army of occupation handled insurrection before and after 14A passage.

U.S. Grant was General of the Army (1866), Secretary of war (1867), and then of course President. As General of the Army he prevented some insurrectionists from holding elected office, particularly in Louisiana. A US Senator-elect was prevented from taking his seat by vote of the US Senate. [This from the book Klan War By Fergus M. Bordewich]
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/647165/klan-war-by-fergus-m-bordewich/

Reconstruction remains a lightly touched subject. We are very late to learning the lessons of it.
_________________

https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/

At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to be disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.

Section 3, also known as the Disqualification Clause, has gained new relevance in the wake of the January 6th insurrection, when a violent mob that then-President Trump summoned and urged to “fight like hell” seized the United States Capitol to disrupt the peaceful transition of power. Adopted after the Civil War to protect American democracy from those who sought to destroy it, Section 3 disqualifies from office anyone who swore an oath to support the Constitution as a federal or state officer and then engaged in insurrection or rebellion against it, unless Congress removes the disqualification by a two-thirds vote.

CREW analyzed historical records to identify all public officials who a court, legislature, or other body determined to have been disqualified under Section 3. The list includes six officials aligned with the Confederacy who held office after the Civil War, as well as former New Mexico County Commissioner Couy Griffin, who a state court removed from office last year based on his participation in the January 6th insurrection following a lawsuit CREW brought on behalf of three New Mexico residents.

Section 3 adjudications against former Confederates were rare in the aftermath of the Civil War. That is because it was widely understood that former Confederates who took an oath to support the Constitution before the Civil War were disqualified under Section 3 and therefore many likely did not seek office in the first place. In fact, ex-Confederates flooded Congress with thousands of amnesty requests to “remove” their Section 3 disqualification, demonstrating that they understood themselves to be disqualified even without a formal adjudication. In addition, the window for disqualifying ex-Confederates was small: the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868, and Congress removed the Section 3 disqualification for most ex-Confederates less than four years later in the Amnesty Act of May 22, 1872 (that statute withheld amnesty from Confederate leaders such as Jefferson Davis). So while only eight officials have been formally ruled to be disqualified under Section 3, thousands more were understood to be disqualified in the period between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification in 1868 and Congress’s passage of the Amnesty Act in 1872 that applied to former Confederates.

[Much more at the above link]
______________________
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unseated_members_of_the_United_States_Congress
Both houses of the United States Congress have refused to seat new members based on Article I, Section 5 of the United States Constitution which states that:

"Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide."

This had been interpreted that members of the House of Representatives and of the Senate could refuse to recognize the election or appointment of a new representative or senator for any reason, often political heterodoxy or criminal record.

Recommendations

2 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

difficult to call it human rampartd Dec 1 #1
He is horrible. jimfields33 Dec 1 #26
and ya know what , jim rampartd Dec 1 #30
Definitely not on both counts. jimfields33 Dec 1 #32
This message was self-deleted by its author Kingofalldems Dec 1 #48
I am sure the trolls won't like it. Kingofalldems Dec 1 #49
i hate its guts Trueblue1968 Dec 1 #39
I agree and also..Wait until this.."Ladies and Gentleman. Your State Of the Union ..President Donald Trump chouchou Dec 1 #2
The Lone Ranger is not coming... Dennis Donovan Dec 1 #3
I didn't the last time.... Butterflylady Dec 1 #4
WILL NOT EVER!!! Clouds Passing Dec 1 #5
At the moment, he's just Garbage Truck Barabbas to me. RedWhiteBlueIsRacist Dec 1 #6
Right there with you. LoisB Dec 1 #7
It's a cancer. Loryn Dec 1 #8
I, too, am just calling it It. Polly Hennessey Dec 1 #9
Me either hermetic Dec 1 #10
First Felon? CaptainTruth Dec 1 #11
Perfect!🤣😁 n/t Hope22 Dec 1 #12
Nice! onecaliberal Dec 1 #14
Or Felon 47 BonnieJW Dec 1 #16
I like that! CaptainTruth Dec 1 #25
Sigh, just noodling here. Six117 Dec 1 #13
We have only the rights those 6 fucking rapist pigs grant us. onecaliberal Dec 1 #15
It is an adjudicated rapist. totodeinhere Dec 1 #17
"They're rapists." czarjak Dec 1 #18
TRAITOR** (for twice-impeached)) works for me. Or F'n, murdering, orange, RAPIST, niyad Dec 1 #19
Calling TCFSF "it" reminds me of barbtries Dec 1 #20
Rapist, felon, spy XanaDUer2 Dec 1 #21
Prepare endless summer Dec 1 #22
Unfortunately the men and women who would try and stand against it are republicans. Were are Rs in this position they Pepsidog Dec 1 #23
I didn't include women because we are NOT full citizens with decision making ability for our own lives. onecaliberal Dec 1 #24
I don't think those rules were ever meant to apply to constructive criticism. Crunchy Frog Dec 1 #41
TSMRSpy? bucolic_frolic Dec 1 #27
Orange hitler wanna be 2.0 kimbutgar Dec 1 #28
K&R Blue Owl Dec 1 #29
To answer 14A query - Reconstruction Era precedents that are now lost or irrelevant bucolic_frolic Dec 1 #31
If anyone in my presence refers to it as President, peacebuzzard Dec 1 #33
I call it PEINO right now Karma13612 Dec 1 #34
Apricot Hellbeast, was one name the Scots had for him when he destroyed a beach to build a golf resort Hekate Dec 1 #35
"The Rapist" has a nice ring to it. bif Dec 1 #36
Our own Ferret, Jeff Tiedrich, Stephanie Miller and Bob Cesca have a ton of fabulous alternative names yellowdogintexas Dec 1 #37
Love her. I has a FSTV subscription for the longest. onecaliberal Dec 1 #38
Completely disagree. Dehumanizing us is wrong and dehumanizing him is also wrong. mahina Dec 1 #40
Co-signed Blue_Tires Dec 1 #42
Not my president LetMyPeopleVote Dec 1 #43
My little rap songie, "Donald Trump Is a Rapist" David Boyle Dec 1 #44
He's not my POTUS Dem4life1234 Dec 1 #45
It markie Dec 1 #46
Let hollar fir a,recount of swing states! Richluu Dec 1 #47
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I will not call it presid...»Reply #31