Perhaps the Republican Senators need to be told that if they vote to acquit, they are giving complete and total unfettered power to one man. They know that Trump sent a mob over who was ready to kill anyone who got in their way. They did kill. That one man could order a mob to attack any senator at any time. In their home state, in their own personal home even.
And the man with that power that they have given over so happily is currently Biden.
Sleep tight, senator.
No, you’re right. Section 3 of the14th Amendment states that:
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 argument is that Congress could bar Trump from ever holding office again for having “engaged in insurrection.” This would be separate from impeachment.
Not sure what to make of your Biden comment, but . . . Yep, the trial should be about the senators and there oath to the Constitution. They need to be called out in name that a vote to acquit is a vote for dictatorship. Not just Trump.
I should have added this to the list I wrote above. Republicans who vote to acquit will never again be able to say “this is how you got Trump”, nor pretend to be perturbed by his ongoing involvement in politics.
As of now, they are how we got Trump, and they are how we might get Trump again. They will go on the record as owning him. The big gamble for all parties involved is whether that vote is an asset or liability in 2-4 years.
Ignorance fought. Does this require a vote? It reads like it’s automatic.
That’s exactly the point. He isn’t doing anything to report on currently, thus news orgs are mining the archives for renewed outrage because it gets clicks. Any press is free press, especially if it keeps the Trump name in the headlines.
The best actual “deal” Trump ever made was to get the news networks to give him billions of dollars of free press in the 2016 elections, and they’re still doing it because they are hooked on Trump like an opioid addict jonesing for Oxytocin.
Stranger
As I understand it, the vote would be to agree that the clause applies to Trump. Simple majority in both chambers, but the Senate Republicans are likely to filibuster.
I think no one is sure because it hasn’t come up before, but it’s probably better to get a Congressional resolution on record now than it is to argue about whether it was automatic or not in front of the Supreme Court
It’s interesting, the amendment provides for Congress to “remove the disability” but doesn’t state how it is determined that someone engaged in insurrection in the first place.
Presumably, Congress would pass a resolution finding that he had engaged in insurrection. Trump would challenge it in the courts and it would be up to the SC to decide.
So the Senate, perhaps with the House, votes to find that the president engaged in insurrection. He decides to run for office again and wins an election. Or he decides to run again and some states try to keep him off the ballot. His campaign sues and the Supreme Court rules that it was never fully established in a court of law that the former president engaged in insurrection and demand states allow him on the ballot. What then?
I tend to doubt that Trump will actually run again in 2024, but I wonder what happen if he does and this becomes an issue.
My personal opinion is that Trump will probably be acquitted. I don’t think the Senate will reach the two thirds needed to convict him.
And I feel that’s actually not that big a deal. Trump is already out of office and I don’t think he has much of a chance of getting elected back in, even if he is legally eligible.
I think the bigger goal here is to push the Republicans into taking a side. The Democrats are using the impeachment trial to force the Republicans in the Senate to either declare their support for the riot or to declare their opposition to the riot. Either position hurts the Republicans with a portion of their base. The Republicans know this and are trying to avoid having to take a position. But refusing to take a position is making the Republicans look weak and is hurting their image.
I feel this impeachment is more about making the Republicans pay for having supported Trump and his crimes for the last four years than it is about making Trump pay for them. Various state courts can punish Trump.
basically I meant that they are henceforth giving full dictatorial powers to ANY president that comes along in future; And they may not be from their preferred party.
Probably? It’s an absolute certainty. The Republican Jurors (Senators) are working directly with Trump’s lawyers to plan strategy.
It’s like if you had someone on trial for armed robbery, and the Jury consisted of 3 people who were business associates of the man on trial, one was his money launderer, one drove the getaway car, and the other held the door for him as he exited the bank with the loot.
Suppose the police offer one of the others a deal. They won’t be tried for their crime is the accused is convicted for the robbery. How do you think they’ll vote then?
The same is true about this trial. None of the Republicans who are defending Trump are doing so out of principles; they have none. If public opinion turns against Trump, they will quickly switch sides and vote to convict.
Then, in this scenario, he is able to run for President because the Supreme Court has resolved the Constitutional issue in his favor. What’s left to decide?
You also have the problem that Congress removed the disability (without limitation or restriction) in 1898. Does it need to be reinstated? (I don’t know). Can that be done with a simple majority or does it need the same two-thirds that removing the disability requires? (I don’t know). Can it be applied retroactively if it is reinstated? (Almost certainly).
In the 1920s, when the House tried to use Section 3 to prevent the seating of Victor Berger (a socialist!) the majority argued that a statute cannot revoke a constitutional amendment (true) and that Congress only had the power to remove disabilities that had already occurred under Section 3 (less clear). But even in Berger’s case, the argument rested on his conviction under the Espionage Act (which conviction was vacated and he was seated). No one seemed to suggest that Congress could independently declare that Berger had given aid and comfort to our enemies (yet the original purpose of Section 3 was clearly to reach people who were not convicted of any crime in relation to their participation in the rebellion).
Note also that Berger was eligible to run for office and be elected to it. The House simply argued that the Constitution allowed it to refuse to seat him. That would be a curious outcome in a presidential election.
And none of that addresses whether the President falls into either (or both) of the categories listed under Section 3 (but that gets into what is an “officer of” or “officer under” the United States).
That’s perfect.
So basically it appears that there is no clear definition of how exactly someone is deemed to have engaged in insurrection for the purposes of paragraph 3.
At the time of ratification, of course, everyone knew it referred to former Confederates. But that doesn’t really help us interpret it today.
Unless I’m mistaken, there isn’t a specific crime called “insurrection” that one could be convicted of. So I would argue that a Congressional resolution would make sense, but the situation is murky.
Probably any seditious and treacherous act would fall under the category of “insurrection,” but there would have to be some sort of trial and conviction. Impeachment and conviction would probably suffice, and a trial and conviction in a court of law - be it military or civilian - would almost surely suffice, as it would almost surely have the backing of the courts.
But I’m skeptical that a narrow majority along party lines would be regarded as a legitimate finding of fact, and it could potentially backfire in the long run if the Republicans ever succeed in regaining majorities.
The House refusing to seat one of its members-elect because he had violated Section 3 seems like a sensible application of both Section 3 and the House’s power to curate its membership.
But to allow Congress to ban any former or current federal or state officer from any future office (even state office) by simple majority vote without even the due process of an impeachment seems problematic.