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

Nevilledog

(54,808 posts)
19. Where are you getting the notion that there must be a conviction?
Sat Feb 13, 2021, 10:44 PM
Feb 2021

I believe that is in error.

https://www.justsecurity.org/74657/time-to-reconsider-the-14th-amendment-for-trumps-role-in-the-insurrection/

*snip*

Impeachment vs. the 14th Amendment

The rules of the game for the impeachment trial present political and (arguable) constitutional obstacles to the home run result: conviction in the Senate. For example, an overwhelming number of Republican senators have already committed themselves to the dubious “jurisdictional” evasion that the process cannot be applied to a former office holder. Moreover, those acquittal-committed senators who do reach the merits have made it clear that they will seize upon supposed First Amendment principles – which preclude criminal liability for speech unless it expressly calls for specific and immediate acts of violence – to excuse the president’s actions from the constitutional, non-criminal remedy of impeachment and conviction.

The base path to victory in the form of a 14th Amendment, section 3 congressional resolution faces no such obstructions for two simple reasons. First, no matter how dubious the arguments against the constitutionality of convicting a former president in an impeachment trial, there is absolutely no such argument for a jurisdictional barrier to a section 3 bar. The office holding bar in section 3 is expressly intended to be prospective and apply to former officeholders.

Second, the section 3 standard of “engaging” in an insurrection or rebellion and giving “aid or comfort” to those who are enemies of the country are easily satisfied by Trump’s conduct. Former President Trump plainly was “engaged” in (meaning “involved with”) the process leading to the violent invasion of Congress. Furthermore, whatever the challenges of showing that a speech constitutes an actual criminal incitement of violent rioters, Trump’s statements during and immediately after the attack on the Capitol – including telling the rioters “We love you. You’re very special,” and “I know how you feel” – clearly reach the threshold of giving “aid or comfort” to the insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol.

Perhaps most importantly, in the critical quest to hold Trump accountable, a resolution finding that the elements of section 3 have been satisfied requires only a majority vote. This requirement should be immediately achievable in both houses of Congress, both because Democrats hold these majorities and because the purported constitutional objections to impeachment conviction which have been advanced in the Senate are “swings and whiffs” for a section 3 resolution.

*snip*

More at the link

Recommendations

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

Yeppers, this is essentially what we wanted done with this failed conviction msfiddlestix Feb 2021 #1
Ok but it says: soothsayer Feb 2021 #5
This can't be done this way StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #12
Rightio soothsayer Feb 2021 #16
Do We Know Why The Dems Didn't Use The 14th Amendment Route The First Time? Indykatie Feb 2021 #2
Because the 14th Amendment is not something Congress can invoke by itself StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #11
Neil Kayal explains: hlthe2b Feb 2021 #3
I get the feeling nothing is off the table. Even people in Congress who could be OAITW r.2.0 Feb 2021 #4
It needs a conviction in a court. servermsh Feb 2021 #6
Thank you StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #8
Agreed. TwilightZone Feb 2021 #14
You probably have a source already, but... TwilightZone Feb 2021 #21
This will work ONLY if a court rules that Trump is guilty of insurrection StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #7
Ah. That makes sense. soothsayer Feb 2021 #9
Forgive my ignorance on this subject, MontanaMama Feb 2021 #13
I can think of a couple of possibilities StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #15
Got it. MontanaMama Feb 2021 #18
This is what I was trying to ask. Thanks for the explanation. Vivienne235729 Feb 2021 #46
Where are you getting the notion that there must be a conviction? Nevilledog Feb 2021 #19
So a Republican-controlled Congress could have banned Obama from running for a second term NYC Liberal Feb 2021 #20
Read the article....it goes into more detail. Nevilledog Feb 2021 #22
You think Republicans need facts? lol, no TwilightZone Feb 2021 #23
Impeachment was a determination. Nevilledog Feb 2021 #32
The courts would defer to Congress' conclusion, but would still make the decision StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #39
The Constitution StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #24
From the law fare article TwilightZone referenced Nevilledog Feb 2021 #33
Also from the same LawFare article you cited StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #34
That's talking about no impeachment proceedings. They can't just decide to use it by itself. Nevilledog Feb 2021 #36
Did you read the whole article? StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #37
From what I've seen, Schumer did not say he was seriously considering it. TwilightZone Feb 2021 #10
Gotcha soothsayer Feb 2021 #26
Kind of odd, actually. TwilightZone Feb 2021 #28
Certainly won't gripe if that works out, but I really think it's up to voters Hoyt Feb 2021 #17
They "beat him" in 2016 as well... regnaD kciN Feb 2021 #29
OK, guess we are going to refuse to accept election results too. Hoyt Feb 2021 #31
Until/unless Trump is convicted of criminal charges of Insurrection, 14th is likely off the table. Fiendish Thingy Feb 2021 #25
that is my understanding as well, and I doubt he will be criminally charged Celerity Feb 2021 #30
He doesn't have to be criminally charged, but there does have to be a judicial StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #40
This message was self-deleted by its author Celerity Feb 2021 #42
Oki, poor wording upon my part. Celerity Feb 2021 #43
Of course it is Bettie Feb 2021 #27
It's not off limits. But it can't be done without judicial determination of guilt StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #35
He's worked the judicial system his entire life Bettie Feb 2021 #38
How was this applied to the original Confederates after the Civil War? NotASurfer Feb 2021 #41
At the time, everyone who served in the Confederacy was deemed by law to be an insurrectionist StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #44
I think if there was a will to use the 14th they would be all over it. All I hear Hotler Feb 2021 #45
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Confused: are we sure the...»Reply #19