- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution bans anyone who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the U.S. from holding office.
A Florida lawyer is suing Donald Trump in an attempt to disqualify his current run for president. Lawrence A. Caplan’s Thursday lawsuit claims that the ex-president’s involvement in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot would make him ineligible to run again, thanks to the Constitution’s 14th Amendment—a Civil War-era addition aimed at preventing those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the U.S. from holding office. “Now given that the facts seem to be crystal clear that Trump was involved to some extent in the insurrection that took place on January 6th, the sole remaining question is whether American jurists who swear an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution upon their entry to the bench, will choose to follow the letter of the Constitution in this case,” the lawsuit says, also citing Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia. Legal experts say it’s an uphill battle to argue in court, since the amendment has hardly been exercised in modern history. “Realistically, it’s not a Hail Mary, but it’s just tossing the ball up and hoping it lands in the right place,” Charles Zelden, a professor of history and legal studies at Nova Southeastern University, told the South Florida Sun Sentinel.
archive link to South Florida Sun Sentinel article: https://archive.ph/1BntD
These are black and white rules, not easily subject to debate. If you qualify, you qualify.
And if you don’t, you don’t. That’s precisely the point.
14th amendment, section 3. That’s not black and white.
Yes that’s what most of the discussion revolves around, and the idea of who defines what an insurrection is and who’s guilty, because the amendments don’t define this. Some dictionary definitions seem to include minor behavior as mundane as running a protest or making a public statement of disagreement with the current government, which would likely vacuum up any person you’d ever want to vote for.
In the comment you replied to, I was thinking about these constitutional requirements:
-Be a natural-born citizen of the United States -Be at least 35 years old -Have been a resident of the United States for 14 years
Which I think we can agree are either true or false for Amy given candidate and difficult to argue factually. That isn’t true, however, of the 14th amendment concept, which is, in my argument, better left to the voters to decide rather than a small number of judges and lawyers.
I don’t think it’s good to resort to the election to determine a complex legal ruling. It wouldn’t simply be ruling him eligible it not as the case would be in court. It would just make him president if enough people want him. There are many reasons that people pick who they vote for. I would prefer a ruling on the 14th amendment issue to be based only in that and made by people who understand constitutional law.
I understand your reservations about leaving that jn the hands of the judiciary, but for that type of thing I don’t think just letting the election decide is the appropriate course of action.