The whole “he has to be convicted of insurrection” argument isn’t even the precedent. IANAL but Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee weren’t even tried. Presumably the people who wrote the amendment would have had insurrection trials for Confederate officers and prominent politicians if they thought it was required to ban them from holding office. (Instead, they pardoned a lot of those people.)
I mean, obviously, I’m not naive. The current SCOTUS will find a way to allow Trump to run. Originalists abandon originalism whenever it’s convenient.
The whole “he has to be convicted of insurrection” argument isn’t even the precedent.
Even more important, the 14th Amendment says nothing about a requirement of conviction for the person to be excluded for eligibility because of insurrection. Specifically mentioning “conviction” as a requirement is used elsewhere in the Constitution for other things (impeachment as an example), so its not on the concept is foreign to the document.
States are free to run their elections however they want, as long as they end up sending the correct number of electors to DC. You’d think the “states rights” crowd would know and support that.
The whole thing is kinda silly anyways since the primaries aren’t “real” elections. The RNC can pick any candidate they want regardless of the outcome of the primaries. They make their own rules so that can change them to whatever they want. For example because Trump has been removed from the ballot in Colorado (including as a write-in), the GOP is likely to petition the RNC to allow them to caucus, which is way less formal and more chaotic in my opinion, but is a loophole since there is no ballot.
Of course this all depends on what SCOTUS does with respect to the 14th amendment. Even that is kinda sketchy since, like you said, there have been candidates removed from ballots that were not convicted let alone even tried. Although Congress posthumously lifted the disqualification from Lee in 1975, and Davis in 1978. There was one candidate removed but he was actually convicted, a Victor Berger from Wisconsin. But even that conviction was overturned by SCOTUS and he later ran and won. I guess you could say no one really has the balls to test it properly.
The Victor Berger from Wisconsin one is so ridiculous. He engaged in no violent insurrection. But he was a socialist and published editorials. They tried to use the “given aid or comfort to the enemies” part to ban him from Congress
Honestly, I wish there had been trials and stuff during reconstruction.
This is what I am trying to find out about for myself. Does he need to be convicted of something somewhere? I was just looking for info about this yesterday and all I can find is Jack Smith and Colorado stuff. I care about 14th amendment stuff because nothing else matters.
The whole “he has to be convicted of insurrection” argument isn’t even the precedent. IANAL but Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee weren’t even tried. Presumably the people who wrote the amendment would have had insurrection trials for Confederate officers and prominent politicians if they thought it was required to ban them from holding office. (Instead, they pardoned a lot of those people.)
I mean, obviously, I’m not naive. The current SCOTUS will find a way to allow Trump to run. Originalists abandon originalism whenever it’s convenient.
Even more important, the 14th Amendment says nothing about a requirement of conviction for the person to be excluded for eligibility because of insurrection. Specifically mentioning “conviction” as a requirement is used elsewhere in the Constitution for other things (impeachment as an example), so its not on the concept is foreign to the document.
States are free to run their elections however they want, as long as they end up sending the correct number of electors to DC. You’d think the “states rights” crowd would know and support that.
The whole thing is kinda silly anyways since the primaries aren’t “real” elections. The RNC can pick any candidate they want regardless of the outcome of the primaries. They make their own rules so that can change them to whatever they want. For example because Trump has been removed from the ballot in Colorado (including as a write-in), the GOP is likely to petition the RNC to allow them to caucus, which is way less formal and more chaotic in my opinion, but is a loophole since there is no ballot.
Of course this all depends on what SCOTUS does with respect to the 14th amendment. Even that is kinda sketchy since, like you said, there have been candidates removed from ballots that were not convicted let alone even tried. Although Congress posthumously lifted the disqualification from Lee in 1975, and Davis in 1978. There was one candidate removed but he was actually convicted, a Victor Berger from Wisconsin. But even that conviction was overturned by SCOTUS and he later ran and won. I guess you could say no one really has the balls to test it properly.
The Victor Berger from Wisconsin one is so ridiculous. He engaged in no violent insurrection. But he was a socialist and published editorials. They tried to use the “given aid or comfort to the enemies” part to ban him from Congress
Honestly, I wish there had been trials and stuff during reconstruction.
This is what I am trying to find out about for myself. Does he need to be convicted of something somewhere? I was just looking for info about this yesterday and all I can find is Jack Smith and Colorado stuff. I care about 14th amendment stuff because nothing else matters.