It took months before the first mention of Section 3 in a public document. Free Speech For People, a Massachusetts-based liberal nonprofit, sent letters to top election officials in all 50 states in June 2021, warning them not to place Trump on the ballot should he run again in 2024 because he had violated the provision.
None of them took action, part of a general silence in reaction to the group’s arguments.
“People were just treating it as something that was not serious,” recalled John Bonifaz, the group’s co-founder.
By January 2022, the group decided to test Section 3 in court.
Looking for a lower-level defendant, Sherman’s organization zeroed in on Couy Griffin. The subject of one of the earliest Jan. 6 prosecutions, Griffin already has a rich legal record. He was was recorded in a restricted area of the U.S. Capitol as head of a group called Cowboys for Trump. Griffin was convicted of illegally entering the Capitol, but acquitted of engaging in disorderly conduct.
He still served as a commissioner in a rural New Mexico county, which kept CREW’s attention on him. On Sept. 6, 2022, a New Mexico judge ordered Griffin removed from his position. It was the first time in more than 100 years an official had been removed under Section 3. Griffin has appealed to the Supreme Court.
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Section 3: Disqualification from office for insurrection or rebellion
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
The question ultimately whether the President is an “officer of the US”. Seeing as the President holds an office, I think they should be, but who knows what the current crop in the Supreme Court might twist things to.
That’s not a question. The authors of the amendment unambiguously stated that they also meant rhe President. President Andrew Jackson, president at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified, explicitly referred to himself as either the “chief executive officer of the United States” or “chief civil executive officer of the United States.” He was referred to as the same during his impeachment.
Antonin Scalia also wrote in an opinion in 2014 that the President was an officer of the United States.
It’s a bad faith argument with no merit. Of course, that doesn’t mean the court won’t agree with it, because the current SCOTUS is illegitimate and fully corrupt.
Andrew Jackson was president like 20 years before the civil war my guy. Ulysses S. Grant was president when the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. I’m not really sure how you thought otherwise. Regardless, your other point about his reference to himself as an officer is irrelevant anyways because that’s not what determines him to be an officer of the court.
The actual reason is that when the 14th Amendment was being signed, the specific question of “why does it not mention president” was asked nearly verbatim. One of the writers of the Amendment, who I’m forgetting the name of, replied to them by asking them to read over the part where it says “any officer”. We know this because we have the minutes from that day, we have the transcription as it was recorded by hand at the time.
A federal court already determined Trump to have engaged in insurrection. By all accounts, he should be barred from running.
You’re right, my mistake, it was Andrew Johnson. Grant was president by the time the amendmnt was fully ratified.
You originally said “at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified”. But fair enough, I suppose. I understand what you mean.
You’re right, I definitely was wrong. I also called him Jackson, so clearly I’m not a reliable source of accurate historical information.
Yeah the current SCOTUS could be expected to twist the words any which way. Hopefully not, but it wouldn’t be out of character.
I honestly can’t imagine how anyone could convince themselves that, if someone could go back and ask the authors of Section 3 if they thought it applied to the office of the president, that they would say, “No” . It’s ridiculous to me that this is even something we’re discussing.
ETA: Not disagreeing with you. Just complaining.
You can look up the minutes from the exact meeting where they discuss the wording of the amendment. There is an official record of these discussions. This exact question was asked and it was confirmed that the President is included. I don’t have a link atm, but someone posted it in another thread.
Comforting.
However, the cynic in me would point out that referring someone to previous part of the text doesn’t explicitly include the President in the latter part. Someone who swore an oath as an officer could not become President, but if the President is not considered an officer and that person was never an officer in any other capacity, they could still slip through the cracks.
That’s quite clearly the wrong interpretation, and I feel dirty for suggesting it, but there is still a small amount of uncertainty in the letter of it all.
I think it’s crystal clear, but I too have watched even lower courts twist themselves in circles to skirt justice for trump. I’m sure there will be a delay at least until after he’s won/lost. Which is just disgusting.
I agree also, it’s a ridiculous insinuation. But it’s also the most likely way that Trump might get off.
The president is the commander-in-chief of the military. That sounds pretty officer-y to me.
I’m pretty sure the military boys would agree.
Wait, since the military has its own law, if Trump somehow avoids justice (most likely by delaying until he could parden himself) could the Postmaster General arrest him and hand him over to the military for court martial? Sentenced and executed same afternoon?
By law, the commander-in-chief is a civilian. This means they are not subject to the UCMJ and cannot be court-martialed.
Yea, that’s right, I was just stream of conscious spitballin
Unfortunately, the lay definition of “officer” isn’t the same as the Constitutional definition. Also, the entire phrase “officer of the United States” is not the same as the positional title of just “officer.”
The Constitution refers to “officers of the United States” more than once, but each time (excepting the Fourteenth Amendment) they’re described as positions appointed by the President. The theory is that since the Constitution refers to them as appointed by the President, the Presidency itself cannot be an officer of the US since the President is elected.
Here’s a law article from Seth Barrett Tillman explaining that position. (Page 21 is where the relevant argument begins.)
Tillman conveniently ignores literally all of the historical and contextual evidence that doesn’t support his bullshit.
I’m not in the legal profession, so what context or historical evidence did he miss?
Also to be clear, I’m not saying that Tillman makes a convincing argument, or one that I agree with, only that it’s an argument as to why the President might not be an “officer of the United States.”
The historical context is that during the ratification proceedings, a senator basically spoke up and said “Hey I think we forgot to include the President and we can’t have that” and another one replied “Don’t worry, he counts as an officer”.
And remember, when the SCOTUS originalists interpret the constitution, their number one consideration is “What did the people who wrote this particular amendment mean by this word / phrase?” In this case, the answer is clear.
I’d love to see a suit taking a corporation to the mat in that in its mere modern existence it’s usurped the founders intent…
Which was a frothing contempt for them. They recognized they were helpful for big projects that society needed, so a charter would be granted to say…build a bridge…and upon completion immediately disbanded.
Id call this the greatest court in history if they restored that. I think the earth rotations reversing is more likely.
It’s not necessarily the founders intent that matters. It’s whoever wrote the text in question.
So when interpreting a law about corporations written in 1930, what matters is how “corporation” was defined in 1930 not 1787.
They didn’t literally say that though. They simply referred to the previous part that said “or hold any office in the US”. It’s pretty obvious that’s what he meant, but it isn’t explicitly what was said or written.
Originalists have to rely on what words “obviously” meant at the time, because “explicit” definitions are often unavailable.
Well, there’s also the part about not holding any office.
The other issue is that the constitution does not put the exact words “support the constitution” in the presidential oath of office, and Trump took no other oath. He’s argued the absence of those words is conspicuous, as all others - including the VP - are obligated to say them.
I think SCOTUS is hoping he chokes on a pork chop before March and doesn’t have to make a ruling.
Yes they did and yes he said it.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SJmrlMFHgPA
He swore to “preserve, protect, and defend the constitution.” Article II Section 1 Clause 8 specifies the exact oath the President Elect must take, and that oath does not include the word “support”.
It’s a bullshit argument which is defeated by Article VI Clause 3, so long as the President is considered an “executive officer”. But, his lawyers are using the different wording in Article II and Article VI to support their contention that the presidency is not an executive office.
Going after the word “support” is semantic at best and any lawyer would be able to blow up that argument in a heartbeat.
In a fair court, yes. In a court packed with Trump appointees, I dunno.
The Roberts Court makes a mockery of the law