# Various states, including Colorado, determine Trump is disqualified from holding office **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Tags:** trump\ **Created:** [August 11, 2023, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412 "2023-08-11T16:27:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 58
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2024, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/1142 "2024-03-06T00:18:07Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > And since he left office _nobody_ AFAIK has sought to indict him for _insurrection_ or even for inciting a riot on federal property. Or maybe that comes under “Obstruction of official proceedings” but that is as far as it gets. “Insurrection” isn’t a crime you can charge for. Good luck finding anyone ever convicted of it in the history of the United States. (Hint: you won’t.) On the other hand, conspiracy to overthrow the election and illegally place yourself in charge is absolutely insurrection, and he was charged for that. His actions on January 6 were even part of the indictment, and used as evidence of part of his criminality. So yeah, he **has** been indicted on this already, Smith is trying to get him convicted in DC right now for it. That’s all part of the _other_ thread. > [@DOJ/Jack Smith Investigation into Trump and Election Interference, January 6th Insurrection (Indicted 08-01-23)](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-indicted-08-01-23/975455): > > The January 6th Committee is winding down, we don’t know what future investigations may occur in the Senate to pick up where the House left off. However, the investigation that will matter most to Trump is what the DOJ does. We’re aware there is an investigation and it has gone on for a long time. Many lower-level defendants have been scooped up and are in various stages of prosecution. What is less clear is where the investigation is with respect to Trump and those who assisted him in his a… ---
**Author:** ![TroutMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/troutman/32/6721_2.png) [@TroutMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TroutMan)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2024, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/1143 "2024-03-06T00:47:16Z")
> [@Atamasama](#): > > “Insurrection” isn’t a crime you can charge for. Good luck finding anyone ever convicted of it in the history of the United States. (Hint: you won’t.) > > On the other hand, conspiracy to overthrow the election and illegally place yourself in charge is absolutely insurrection, and he was charged for that. 18 U.S.C. §2383 (" Rebellion or insurrection") was written in the same timeframe as the 14th Amendment. I think it’s entirely reasonable to assume that “insurrection” in the 14th references the same act as §2383. It makes no sense to say Trump’s actions don’t rise to the level of insurrection in the legislative code, but do with regards to the 14th. The fact that no one has been convicted of insurrection to date could mean a lot of things: it’s impossible to prove insurrection if it wasn’t successful; the few times an action might have reached that level, there were other easier crimes to prove; prosecutors are too timid; etc. No matter the reason, I think the conclusion is this is a poor way to keep him off the ballot. Stick with the charged crimes that are easier to prove. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2024, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/1144 "2024-03-06T00:48:36Z")
> [@Atamasama](#): > > “Insurrection” isn’t a crime you can charge for. Good luck finding anyone ever convicted of it in the history of the United States. (Hint: you won’t.) SCOTUS themselves referred to [18 USC 2383](https://law.justia.com/codes/us/2021/title-18/part-i/chapter-115/sec-2383/) > Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. _It IS true that nobody has been convicted of this_. But it does not mean it is impossible. _ **However** _ the extended SCOTUS decision ties everyone’s hands by saying that as far as they can tell there is no _other_ law that has the effect of enforcing Sec. 3, so… > [@Atamasama](#): > > On the other hand, conspiracy to overthrow the election and illegally place yourself in charge is absolutely insurrection, and he was charged for that. His actions on January 6 were even part of the indictment, and used as evidence of part of his criminality. He stands accused or obstruction and conspiracy to obstruct an official function, conspiracy to deprive others of rights, and conspiracy to defraud the United States with an included allegation of taking advantage of chaos and violence. And that this “is absolutely insurrection” would be a _moral_ opinion but, aggravatingly, as the decision interprets the law, it apparently would not be considered legally the same for these purposes. Nothing precludes a Congress passing going forward a law bringing those under the umbrella of “insurrection or rebellion” on the criminal side and/or creating a civil cause of action in Federal Court so someone can put forth a suit or injunction for disqualification for those conducts (with a correspondingly lower standard of proof). But that isn’t happening until someone gets the presidency AND both houses with a filibuster-proof Senate on board. ---
**Author:** ![Akaj](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/akaj/32/145_2.png) [@Akaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akaj)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2024, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/1145 "2024-03-06T16:41:43Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > Nothing precludes a Congress passing going forward a law bringing those under the umbrella of “insurrection or rebellion” on the criminal side and/or creating a civil cause of action in Federal Court so someone can put forth a suit or injunction for disqualification for those conducts (with a correspondingly lower standard of proof). But that isn’t happening until someone gets the presidency AND both houses with a filibuster-proof Senate on board. Which, in effect, means we’ll never see a candidate declared ineligible for insurrection in our lifetimes. In our current climate, it’s unimaginable that Congress could get its shit together to codify what insurrection means, to whom Sec. 3 applies, and how and when to apply it. If there’s a future climate where Congress could actually pull it off, it will also likely mean that there’s no one running for federal office who deserves to be excluded. ---
**Author:** ![TroutMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/troutman/32/6721_2.png) [@TroutMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TroutMan)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2024, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/1146 "2024-03-06T16:59:55Z")
The sad fact is that we probably have enough safeguards to prevent an individual from committing insurrection, but we are helpless when an entire party does it. ---
**Author:** ![Ponderoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ponderoid/32/19221_2.png) [@Ponderoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ponderoid)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2024, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/1147 "2024-03-06T17:11:14Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > [18 USC 2383](https://law.justia.com/codes/us/2021/title-18/part-i/chapter-115/sec-2383/) > > > Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and **shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.** I just realized the bit I bolded from the statute might be declared unconstitutional someday, if someone who had never previously sworn an oath to support the constitution (unlike Trump, who did so on Jan 20th 2017) was ever convicted and barred from future office using that clause and appealed things all the way to SCOTUS. The 14th amendment does limit who can be penalized that way, and the statute as written makes no distinction. ---
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2024, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/1148 "2024-03-06T17:39:42Z")
> [@TeroSunbear](#): > > each state can ban any candidates for federal office. Procedures shall go through state courts. When 2/3 of the states ban a candidate, he or she shall be removed from any federal election that and following years. Be careful what you wish for. Nearly 2/3 of the state legislatures are Republican controlled. > **[State Partisan Composition](https://www.ncsl.org/about-state-legislatures/state-partisan-composition)** > > Every election impacts the partisan composition of state legislatures. Current party control of state legislatures and government can be accessed below. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2024, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/1149 "2024-03-06T17:42:16Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > If there’s a future climate where Congress could actually pull it off, it will also likely mean that there’s no one running for federal office who deserves to be excluded. It’s a little worse than that. One reason there was enough of a push to pass the [Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Count_Reform_and_Presidential_Transition_Improvement_Act_of_2022) was that everyone knew DJT will quite possibly be the next president of the United States. Without that possibility, the same members of Congress would have been willing to vote for it, but urgency would have been lower, and it might have been left behind. An Article 3 implementation act will seem even less urgent. It will be pointed out that it couldn’t have stopped a first Trump term. In theory, a bill could be passed saying that the 2,000 or so persons, who breached the Capitol on January 6, 2021, are barred from federal office for life. But the Supreme Court might say that such trespassing wasn’t enough to be an insurrectionist. Such ambiguities, in what the Trump v. Anderson decision allows, would result in too much uncertainty for it to be worth bringing such a bill to the floor. It would take considerable courage for the Supreme Court to disqualify a highly electable Presidential candidate. Their homes would be picketed. Death threats would increase. The size of, and inconveniences associated with, their security details would increase. Their spouses and children would need security details. So no matter what bill was passed, they would look for an excuse not to decide if the future Trump was barred by Article 3, and would find it just as they did two days ago. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2024, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/1150 "2024-03-07T10:20:56Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > If Congress passed a law saying that you have to be convicted under 18 U.S.C. §2383 to be disqualified, it would almost be as if Section 3 was never enacted. > [@Max\_S](#): > > In fact, the Radical Republicans who gave us the 14th Amendment were largely motivated by the shaky constitutional foundations of legislation they _already_ passed. There were also wide-reaching (criminal) amnesties as the civil war wound down, some as a condition for surrender if I recall, and then even wider amnesties years after as Reconstruction came to an end. I will also note, again, that there was in fact a law empowering U.S. District Attorneys to sue (in civil court) and disqualify ex-C.S.A. That law was repealed however. ~Max [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412.md?page=57)