'There's a powerful argument' Trump is disqualified for presidency under 14th Amendment: Kaine

14A S3 is not about punishment for a crime. It is about disqualification from office for a specfied condition, exactly in the same way that people who are under the age of 35 years (the condition) are disaqualified from the office of President. People who, having previously taken an oath to uphold the Constitution for the office they held, and then having engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or having given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof (the condition), are disqualified from office.

The condition described in 14A S3 may also be a criminal matter, but that is a wholly separate concern.

It's not a precedent. The entire reason Amendment 14 is there is because they needed something broad after the Civil War happened. They needed wording that would apply to all of the people who had been on the other side in the Civil War even without convictions. Applying the same standard to Trump is just treating him like they treated all of the people in the past who were elected officials who took up arms against the country or gave aid and comfort to those who did.

Good points. If he is in prison, he would get 25thd until he got out. So the election will be between Biden and Trump's running mate

This is a very reasonable response. It's a very difficult issue to work through, and hopefully this all shakes out in a way that doesn't create a terrible precedent, but still puts the correct traitors in jail.

The conservative argument for when the law is clear and bad? "let the legislature fix it" lol

Comforting an insurrectionist isn't really a crime in and of itself, however, it is a disqualifier for holding office.

The process to do so via political action was via impeachment and removal from office.

But they fucked that one up. So here we are.

I also agree with you it should carry a guilty verdict of some suitable crime, because other precedents would be ripe for abuse.

Not to the American voter it's not

actually...a lot of people need to do something. which is the purpose behind talking about it first. getting support and consensus for possibly making a case can lead to cases actually being made. it's not like on TV where the district attourney of america walks up to the judge of america and convicts him. educating people why there are arguments and convincing them they are powerful don't happen overnight.

A lawsuit isn't required, if the state election officials do the right thing.

An insurrectionist is an ineligible candidate for US president, just like a non-citizen or someone who's not 35 yet. The states merely need to follow that existing law, just as they would do if a teenager named Pierre from Paris filed to run for US president. They wouldn't have to be sued to say no; and Pierre wouldn't have to be convicted of anything — they'd just say no, he's not eligible, he doesn't get listed on the ballot.

Trump is not eligible, just as Pierre is not eligible. Trump's ineligibility rests on his own actions rather than his age or nationality. But all of those are (dis)qualifications spelled out in the Constitution; they're not civil or criminal penalties from a court. It's the job of election officials to enforce them, and a lawsuit only makes sense if they fail to do their job correctly in the first place.

So much this. It feels like 2015-2016 all over again and I'm so sick of it already.

Let them fight it; it is their right to do so, in the courts. That is where legal disputes are adjudicated. It would be appropriate for courts, if so requested, to determine as a finding of fact, whether the Jan 6 invasion of the US Capitol for the purposes of preventing legal federal business is an "insurrection" (NM already decided that it was), and whether the actions of a given person rise to the level of "participation," or "giving aid or comfort to the enemies of the United States."

The answers to the above are ones that it would be good for the judicial system to rule on, no matter what answer(s) come out of such hearings. The sooner we get to that point, the better.

That's true but in this case, the republicans in power would like nothing more than to have him gone. The best way that could play out for them is this but blame the Democrats for it after it's done.

I mean, they're perfectly willing to ignore parts of the constitution *cough*well-regulated*cough*

For real. You could have the best argument in the world, and Thomas etc al will just say, "No"