Not true. There’ve been 7 people excluded from office due to the insurrection clause. Six inbetween the passage of the amendment and Congress giving blanket amnesty. The other was in the past year or two. I don’t remember the details off the top of my head, but most, if not all, were not convicted of insurrection or a related offence.
Maine’s SoS was swatted lasst night.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/30/politics/maine-secretary-of-state-bellows-swatted/index.html
In a perfect world they’d be able to tack attempted murder onto Loser Donald’s rap sheet.
IIRC the recent ones were all convicted.
And IIRC none of those were running for public office.
This might help.
And yes he was convicted.
Griffin was among the mob that stormed the Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021, in an attempt to overturn the election. He was arrested on Jan. 18, 2021, and convicted this past summer of illegally entering or remaining on restricted grounds. Griffin was sentenced to 14 days in jail, but was given credit for time served.
That’s a bit weird though. I thought swatting usually involved reporting criminal activity on the part of the resident, to instigate a police response treating the homeowner as a potential criminal and potential threat. But law enforcement must know this is the SoS residence, and they would not treat any report that she was engaged in criminal activity as credible - their reaction would surely be protective rather than aggressive toward her.
Well, I was half wrong. Oh well
It says this-
This ruling marks the first time an elected official is set to be unseated by court order as a result of participating in or supporting the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. …This ruling marks the first time an elected official is set to be unseated by court order as a result of participating in or supporting the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.
No, it’s reporting criminal activity AT the home of the swattee. Like a break-in, or a gunshot, or a hostage situation in the house, or something similar. So the cops knew it was the home of the SOS, but had no idea who the actual alleged lawbreaker was. So as far as they knew, the SOS was in danger, which may have helped the quick response and investigation.
Googling this, he has exhausted all appeals in New Mexico state courts, but claimed last month (truthfully or not, I cannot determine) that an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, regarding his removal from office, is pending:
I thought that I could counter with the 10th amendment, but that says
(My emphasis)
The problem, as I see it, is that this is not merely a legal area where the congress has chosen not to act. Per the plain reading of the law, Congress is the only entity granted the power to enforce the 14th, by an express delegation of authority.
The argument, then, is that Congress didn’t act because it chose not to. Nobody else gets to fill that role just because they think Congress should, anymore than a state gets to pass its own immigration laws because it doesn’t think that the federal government is doing enough to secure the border.
At the home, obviously, but I thought it usually entailed something like “I think they are cooking meth in there and I just heard gunshots” or something like that, so that the police would be more likely to act aggressively toward the resident. But I guess what’s credible depends who you are swatting.
Sure, you can argue that it would take an act of Congress to lower the required standard of proof to a mere civil trial. But you could also argue that it would take an act of Congress to raise the required standard of proof to a criminal trial. Without an act of Congress, we’re in the default state, but nobody knows what that default state is.
Under the plain reading of the 14th Amendment, the default position is whatever Congress chooses to do.
So, a federal civil rights law that prohibits racial discrimination becomes the default state of discrimination law. But if the congress never passes a law that makes it unlawful, for example, to discriminate against children due to their age, then the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to child versus adult discrimination.
Yes, the 14th says that you can’t be elected to office if you engage in insurrection. But until congress passes a law outlining the specific application, it only exists in the abstract, and isn’t specifically applicable to any particular person.
(To be clear, I’m not saying that this is a correct, or even desirable, result. I’m just trying to think of what the court might do).
Did any of the handful of people prevented from holding office via the 14A have Congress step in to create that outcome? However those situations were enforced (and the logic for denying appeals) might shed some light.
Apparently not.
First, some background, as the 14th amendment plainly was meant to apply to confederates.
However, there are 8 specific examples. In some of them, the U.S. congress refused to seat them, notwithstanding their election. In others, a state law or state official (such as a judge) ruled them ineligible.
But the furthest those appeals went was to state supreme courts - it doesn’t appear that the US Supreme Court has ever weighed in.
I’m guessing that will change.
Interesting. The clause assigning enforcement power to Congress in 14A seems to allow actions conducted without Congress’s involvement, I would think.
If it were as unambiguously restrictive to anyone outside of Congress as suggested, surely even an “activist” state judiciary would have felt unable to bless a state official bouncing a candidate.
The swatting call could be something like there’s a break-in in progress, or the SoS is being held hostage, or someone’s shooting at the house.
Seems like we’ve heard this before:
Hey, great minds, etc.
I got a Crazy-Ass sample ballot for the primary in the mail. No trump, but there is a Donald Kjornes (how do you pronounce that? 
) along with Pence, Haley and 4 other names I’ve never heard of.
On the Dem side, there is Biden, and TWELVE other names! One of them is Superpayaseria Crystalroc, which sounds like somebody made it up.
Judging from his Twitter account, he’s running for president because the court gave his ex-wife custody.
Dude might just give Elmo Mush himself some solid competition for the title of “Most Divorced Man Alive”.