I agree.
Yep. How this bar is enforced is a question mark. I suppose someone would file a lawsuit demanding he be removed from the ballot (or preventing him from being sworn in if he’s allowed to run) and the courts would figure out if the conviction was the type of crime to prevent him from “holding office.” It should be interesting.
Thanks for the agreement. While I’m not a lawyer, I’ve been reading legalese for decades (proofreader of appellate briefs, then of deposition and hearing transcripts), and the language seemed so plain I couldn’t understand why other folks were getting the opposite meaning from it – was I losing my mind?
I’m not only not a lawyer, I have little experience parsing legalese, especially antiquated legalese. I guess I reached the conclusion I did because, some sort of authoritative body would have to determine that insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution did take place, and I assumed that it didn’t have to rise to the level of a criminal conviction. That’s why I thought the 2/3 vote was meant as the determining factor in that. As I said, I am glad to apparently be proven wrong!
What about if trump is convicted only for the mishandling of classified documents? My guess would be that, as serious and egregious an offense as that is, it would not rise to the level of treason unless it was proven that the documents were intentionally leaked.
Yes, that’s the real issue here, because treason under the Constitution, as the lawyers and/or constitutionalists among us have explained before, has a narrowly defined meaning, and the convictions you cite, while certainly serious, would not fall within that definition.
Note that the 14th Amendment is only one potential legal bar to Trump holding office on conviction. The other that has been cited is this one.
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
The big question is whether the presidency counts as “any office under the United States”. Or whether a law such as this can supersede the qualifications for POTUS as set in the constitution. It was claimed at one time that Hillary Clinton’s email kerfuffle might make her ineligible as well, and Snopes had an article on that:
Here’s what I found ironic there:
Of course, all this is likely practically moot, since if Hillary Clinton is guilty of violating the law, and is convicted for violating the law, such a trial would be a political disqualifier even if not a legal disqualifier; but I take it that the legal disqualification point might itself have some political force even if no trial takes place, and I thought it would be worth noting that the legal disqualification is likely unconstitutional.
I wish we could harken back to a simpler time, 8 years ago, when being found guilty of serious crimes would kill a person’s political career.
So, it’s going to be legal for Trump to run for office, under any circumstance regarding his legal issues, but it’s possible he may not be legally allowed to hold office, if, miraculously, he wins the election, but is convicted or a certain crime, according to the Constitution?
That would be deliciously ironic for the Republicans, that are always upholding the Constitution as a sacred text, to have their hero prevented from holding a won highest office in the land, by such text.
In fact Trump and Biden are tied in a poll by the New York Times at about 43% each.
The founding fathers/writers of the constitution never, ever thought that the american people could be as dumb as they are.
Include that you can’t elect someone that tried to overthrow the government in the White House??? Someone in PRISON??? “Hahah, that a real knee slapper Mr. Hancock”. And yet here we are.
I don’t know how smart the average American was in the 1780s either though.
“Any Office under the United States” - The United States is “We The People”. The President works for us.
The average American in the 1780s couldn’t vote, since the majority of Americans were disenfranchised by gender, age, race, and / or lack of property ownership.
I prefer full democracy to elitist semi-democracy, though I do think it would work better with a robust educational system to teach civics, logic, and rhetoric, among other things.
Which is why Republicans attack and undermine education every chance they get, and have done for the past 50 years.
Just what I dropped in to say. You could vote only if you were 21, white, male, and owned property. By definition, then, you obviously were intelligent.
I support that idea, but I don’t know that it works legally. Article II of the constitution refers multiple times to the POTUS holding an “office”, but separately defines “officers of the United States” as being people that are commissioned by the POTUS (but excludes the president and VP themselves from that definition). I think that’s the distinction that some people make.
Another reason why the founding fathers might not have been as worried about the voting public. Remember that we didn’t even have direct election of US Senators at all until 1913.
Well, remember, a lot of the “Average Americans” of the time weren’t actually allowed to vote. The founding fathers didn’t really expect Billyjoejimbob the third grade dropout to ever be voting.
Exactly, you are making my point, thank you. The founding fathers knew darn well how smart (or dumb) the people were.
In politics, the less you plan to do about something, the more you must talk about it.
Trump is viable because all that has to happen is RFKjr lose democrat nomination & run as an independent. One way ticket for a Trump White House, imho.
So, if Trump wins what happens to his problems? This article discusses this, and it seems corybantic.
Ooh, nice word.