14th amendment

Introduction: The Power of the 14th Amendment to Disqualify Trump

14th amendment

The 14th Amendment, section 3, expressly bars anyone who swore to preserve and protect the Constitution and subsequently participates in an insurrection against the United States is barred from holding elected office in the United States Government. This ban appears to be straightforward, leaving no room for interpretation. But, then, what constitutes an insurrection?

The amendment was offered as a means to ban those who fought for the Confederacy from holding public office. But, in today’s political climate, the question of insurrection in the actions taken by former president Trump to overthrow the will of the voters in 2020 by violent measures encouraging crowds and toddies alike to fight or we the people would lose our democracy. How ironic!

The U.S. Constitution stands as a cornerstone of American democracy, its principles woven into the fabric of the nation’s identity. Among its many provisions, the 14th Amendment has emerged as a critical tool with the potential to reshape the political landscape. As the spotlight shifts to the implications of this amendment, it becomes increasingly apparent that the consequences of one’s actions might eclipse even the most fervent promises, alleged criminal conspiracies, and a series of indictments. FAFO!

The 14th Amendment’s Decisive Role in Disqualification for Holding Federal Office

At the heart of the matter lies the 14th Amendment, a constitutional directive that has the potential to forever alter the course of political history. Its language is unequivocal: “No person shall … hold any office, under the United States … who, having previously taken an oath … 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.” The sheer gravity of this clause cannot be overstated, as it presents an avenue to bar individuals from office based on their actions, not solely convictions.

Disqualification without Conviction: Baude and Paulsen’s Convincing Case for Automatic Disqualification

Scholars William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, both conservative in their views, offer a compelling interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Rooted in originalist philosophy, their argument bypasses the need for a traditional trial and conviction. Instead, they assert that disqualification can be self-executing, an automatic outcome triggered by actions contrary to the Constitution. This perspective defies the notion that fairness hinges solely on courtroom proceedings.

Bipartisan Consensus: Tribe and Luttig Align in Support of Automatic Disqualification

Laurence Tribe, a renowned liberal constitutional scholar, and Michael Luttig, a respected conservative jurist, converge on an unexpected bipartisan consensus. Luttig, in characterizing the events surrounding the 2020 election as a “declared war on American democracy,” lends weight to the perspective that actions, not just criminality, should shape disqualification. This convergence underscores the power of the 14th Amendment to transcend political divides.

Historical Precedent: Drawing from the Post-Civil War Era to Justify 14th Amendment Disqualification

History lends credence to this approach. Following the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was invoked to prevent former Confederate leaders from serving in the federal government, irrespective of convictions. This historical precedent underscores that the Constitution’s intention was to hold individuals accountable for their actions against the nation, regardless of trial outcomes.

Automatic Disqualification’s Practical Application: The Georgia Indictment’s Significance

The recent Georgia indictment against former President Donald Trump epitomizes the potential of the 14th Amendment to reshape contemporary politics. This indictment exposes the extent of efforts to subvert the Constitution and manipulate the democratic process, culminating in the tumultuous events of January 6, 2021. Beyond the indictment’s legal implications, it serves as a testament to the power of actions to shape disqualification.

State Authorities: The Key Players in Enforcing 14th Amendment Disqualification Jurisdiction

In 2023, the avenue to enforce the 14th Amendment’s disqualification lies with state election authorities. The Georgia indictment assumes pivotal importance in this narrative. State officials hold the ability to prevent Trump from appearing on the 2024 ballot, citing his automatic disqualification under the amendment. This approach aligns with historical precedent and legal scholarship, potentially altering the course of American politics.

Trump’s Potential Challenge: Strategic Dilemma Between Trial and 2024 Election

Trump faces a strategic dilemma. While a swift trial in Atlanta could potentially clear his name, it clashes with his strategy to postpone legal proceedings until after the 2024 election. This calculated move aims to maintain his electoral prospects, but it risks foreclosing his chances of appearing on Georgia’s ballot, thereby diminishing his potential electoral college support.

Georgia’s Crucial Role: The Indictment’s Multi-Faceted Impact on 14th Amendment Disqualification

The Georgia indictment’s significance lies in its multifaceted impact on Trump’s disqualification. The indictment outlines a complex scheme to manipulate Georgia’s electoral process, casting a shadow on democratic integrity. Crucially, it involves elected officials who, by resisting this subversion, upheld their constitutional oaths. Their role is pivotal, as they collectively determine who qualifies for Georgia’s presidential ballot.

Subverting Electoral Process: Racketeering Scheme’s Threat to Democracy and 14th Amendment Disqualification

The indictment exposes a comprehensive racketeering scheme that aimed to undermine Georgia’s electoral process. This audacious attempt to subvert democracy stands as a stark example of actions that might trigger automatic disqualification under the 14th Amendment.

Defending the Constitution: Elected Officials’ Resolute Stand against Subversion

Elected officials targeted by this scheme displayed unwavering commitment to their constitutional duty. Their resilience in the face of subversion underscores the weight of actions that defy the Constitution.

Republican Officials: Structure of Party Lines in Preservation of Democracy

Interestingly, these officials spanned party lines, with Republicans such as Brad Raffensberger, Brian Kemp, and Geoff Duncan taking a stand against election subversion. This cross-party commitment to democratic ideals resonates powerfully in the context of disqualification.

Georgia’s Determination: Crucial Players in Shaping the Ballot and 14th Amendment Disqualification

Georgia’s officials hold the dual role of witnesses and potential jurors. Their testimonies and evidence serve as linchpins in the indictment and simultaneously offer insights into Trump’s potential disqualification.

Evidence from Within: Georgia Officials’ Dual Role in Indictment and 14th Amendment Disqualification

The evidence required to convict Trump in the racketeering case against him is the very evidence that might determine his disqualification. Georgia officials’ firsthand experiences hold unparalleled credibility, negating the need for protracted legal proceedings.

No Additional Proceedings Required: Georgia Officials as Witnesses and Jurors

The very officials who witnessed and resisted the subversion orchestrated by Trump are uniquely positioned as witnesses and potential jurors. Their firsthand experiences negate the necessity for further proceedings.

Trump’s Dilemma: Tightrope Walk between Trial and 2024 Election

Trump’s strategic dilemma centers on the timing of his trial. While a pre-election trial could potentially secure his presence on the 2024 ballot, his postponement strategy risks his exclusion from Georgia’s ballot and, by extension, the electoral college calculus.

No Pre-election Trial: The Path to 2024 Disqualification through the 14th Amendment

Should Trump avoid a pre-election trial, he risks the automatic disqualification envisioned by scholars and backed by historical precedent. This scenario could reverberate across all 50 states, imperiling his quest for the White House.

Credibility on the Line: Consequences of Disqualification on Electoral Prospects

The potential disqualification, rooted in actions rather than convictions, places Trump’s credibility on the line. Voters may scrutinize his fitness for office more rigorously, leading to broader implications for his electoral prospects.

Nationwide Ripple Effect: Cascading Impact on Trump’s Electoral Viability

Georgia’s potential disqualification of Trump could pave the way for other states to follow suit. The nationwide ripple effect would leave Trump with a seemingly impossible hurdle in pursuing the presidency.

Conclusion: The 14th Amendment’s Weight in Disqualifying Trump

The 14th Amendment’s pivotal role in disqualification emerges as a testament to the Constitution’s resilience and adaptability. It is also a hard test of the American experiment with a rights-based political system. As the nation navigates a new era, the weight of actions speaks volumes, potentially outweighing even the gravest allegations and unkept promises.

In the end, it underscores that true accountability rests not only in the courtroom but in the actions that shape the very fabric of democracy. In a system that requires the body politic to have confidence in their elected leaders. There is no question that the acts of the former president, Donald Trump, fit neatly into the 3rd section of the 14th Amendment. The only question then becomes, do the American people have the political will to hold to account the former president and his toddies accountable for their actions in 2020 in an organized effort to maintain the ongoing BIG LIE?

By Politics-as-Usual

Roger is a retired Professor of language and literacy. Over the past 15 years since his retirement, Roger has kept busy with reading, writing, and creating landscape photographs. In this time of National crisis, as Fascist ideas and policies are being introduced to the American people and ignored by the Mainstream Press, he decided to stand up and be counted as a Progressive American with some ideas that should be shared with as many people who care to read and/or participate in discusssions of these issues. He doesn't ask anyone to agree with his point of view, but if entering the conversation he demands civility. No conspiracy theories, no wild accusations, no threats, no disrespect will be tolerated. Roger monitors all comments and email communication. That is the only rule for entering the conversation. One may persuade, argue for a different point of view, or toss out something that has not been discussed so long as the tone remains part of a civil discussion. Only then can we find common ground and meaningful democratic change.

One thought on “The 14th Amendment: A Path Barring Trump from Future Office”
  1. […] Colorado Supreme Court bars Trump from 2024 Ballot. In a decision that has far reaching consequences… barring anyone from holding office if they participated in an insurredtion against the United States. The court found that former President Trump did, in fact, participate in inciting ressruection on January 6th 2021. As such he is not suited for holding office. […]

Leave a Reply