Anyone know what section 3 of the 14th says?
Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon
- Thread starter kithnou
- Start date
- Status
Anyone know what section 3 of the 14th says?
TN Toffee
Player Valuation: £25m
Basically their argument isn’t that he didn’t engage in insurrection, simply that the Amendment doesn’t specifically say you can’t be President after having done so, and therefore he isn’t disqualified.
The Amendment was written in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War when states were being readmitted to the Union, and it was easily conceivable that former Confederate lawmakers or military leaders could garner enough support to win statewide elections for lower offices. So this provision was put in to guard against that. The idea that they could win a nationwide Presidential election was inconceivable at the time, and almost certainly why that office is omitted.
So now, here we are with people arguing that treason is not necessarily a disqualifying factor for the office of President simply because the Constitution doesn’t EXPLICITLY say so.
...any office...
Clear as mud then - all down to interpretation
It's not quite that simple, or so the lawyers would have you believe!
If we strip out all the provisions and ors to drill the statement down to what should apply to Trump, its:
"No person shall hold any civil office under the United States, who, having previously taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection..."
Emphasis mine
The presidential oath is as follows:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Emphasis again mine.
So the legal argument goes that because Trump never explicitly swore to support the Constitution, he can engage in a little light insurrection without fear of censure under the 14th.
Yes it's silly, but high-priced lawyers are paid millions to make these cases.
Silly? It's downright specious.
True. Just have to hope that the most senior judges who'll end up ruling on this aren't partisan appointments put there by the man in question.
Oh, wait.
TN Toffee
Player Valuation: £25m
It’ll end up being just like “shall not be infringed”. They’ll interpret it in whatever way is advantageous to them, common sense be damned.
Martin Alvito
Player Valuation: £50m
Let's be honest about what Section 3 is. It's a poorly written, mass bill of attainder against Confederate politicians and officers in the Confederate military. Its purpose was to exclude them from future participation in the political system without trial. Article I prohibits bills of attainder, so Congress drafted that clunky thing instead.
The dispute hinges on the meaning of "officer" in context. One school of thought holds that the president and vice president are not officers. They are elected officials, and "officer" implies an appointment as the Framers would have understood the term. The opposing school of thought says the president would have been understood to be an "officer" at the time the amendment was written.
In any event, the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment did not think to explicitly mention the president or vice president, as they did not rebel. So, here we are. It's possible to rule either way, and I don't find it likely that any of the three Trump appointees, Alito or Thomas will rule against Trump.
One supreme irony here is that, had the draft laws been applied fairly, Trump would have served. It would have been as a commissioned officer, and he would be dead to rights under Section 3. One injustice perpetrates the next.
The dispute hinges on the meaning of "officer" in context. One school of thought holds that the president and vice president are not officers. They are elected officials, and "officer" implies an appointment as the Framers would have understood the term. The opposing school of thought says the president would have been understood to be an "officer" at the time the amendment was written.
In any event, the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment did not think to explicitly mention the president or vice president, as they did not rebel. So, here we are. It's possible to rule either way, and I don't find it likely that any of the three Trump appointees, Alito or Thomas will rule against Trump.
One supreme irony here is that, had the draft laws been applied fairly, Trump would have served. It would have been as a commissioned officer, and he would be dead to rights under Section 3. One injustice perpetrates the next.
Spadge Vernacular
Player Valuation: £70m
What a world lol
www.newsweek.com
Russia may build a village for American conservatives
A Kremlin-backed outlet reported on plans for a community designed for Western ex-pats looking to escape "radical values."
www.newsweek.com
Build it and they will (not) come.What a world lol
Russia may build a village for American conservatives
A Kremlin-backed outlet reported on plans for a community designed for Western ex-pats looking to escape "radical values."
The only thjng worse than Trump is his supporters
TN Toffee
Player Valuation: £25m
It’s easy enough to laugh at Lindell’s downfall, but it’s actually pretty sad. Imagine being a drug addict, turning your life completely around, starting a lucrative business, and then throwing it all away because you fell for a charlatan. Also feel bad for all the company’s employees.
Trump’s Angry Rant About His Legal Mess Reveals an Ugly MAGA Truth
His immunity defense isn’t merely a legal argument. He’s priming his base to back wanton lawbreaking if he wins back the White House.
newrepublic.com
- Status