"The Sweep and Force of Section Three" will disqualify Trump.

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion.

Two law professors have written a paper about to be published, it's already available online

The Paper is entitled: "The sweep and force of section three" and it is not so much about it's argument, content or even abstract:

"First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election."

BUT, it is more about who wrote it and what it means for the future:
William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen are well respected, Republican originalists. They got pull.

This paper will get cited in every every effort to charge Donald Trump and his enterprise, going forward.

Duplicate thread.

What are these 3 yahoos going to do beside vocalize their overstuffed opinions?

When was Trump found guilty of insurrection? When was Trump charged with insurrection?

ROFLMAO before this thread is nuked.

a reply to: briantaylor

www.abovetopsecret.com...


The question is : Has Trump been found guilty ? No.
So these "we got him now" wishful thinking articles are just that...wishful thinking.

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
Duplicate thread.

What are these 3 yahoos going to do beside vocalize their overstuffed opinions?

When was Trump found guilty of insurrection? When was Trump charged with insurrection?

ROFLMAO before this thread is nuked.

we live in a world of wishes, if you say something often enough it becomes true.

its that thinking that has taken us to this place, the legacy media has more conspiracy theories peddled as facts than here..

its all sad but amusing t the same time..

Unarmed protesters with signs are NOT an insurrection.

Can your little thinking cap help you understand that?

a reply to: briantaylor

I haven't read the paper yet, but I saw an interview with a lawyer describing how the Section 3 was used in New Mexico to disqualify one of the Jan 6 participants from holding an elected position.

a reply to: nickyw

Yeah, you right.

It's an alternate reality, this clown world.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Especially when it was a SET UP by Pelosi and Milley.

m.youtube.com...

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: nickyw

Yeah, you right.

It's an alternate reality, this clown world.

very much a clown world where online twitter polls become actual ballotted outcomes and so many forget this stuff still has to be tested in a court of law, not the court of their opinion, or what opinion they like online..

a reply to: briantaylor

this is going to be the legal weapon that shoots Trump down

was my thought when I saw it on the news

let's see how it'll play out

Still need a conviction, and the JAN 6th case is looking like the weakest of the bunch.

*shrugs* just accept he will be in the running in 2024.

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Especially when it was a SET UP by Pelosi and Milley.

m.youtube.com...

The Capitol police chief NEVER said that. Another case of you "manufacturing your own truth".

Remember it was Trump who refused to activate the National Guard, NOT Pelosi 's call despite what you or Tucker try to make others believe.

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
Duplicate thread.

...

When was Trump found guilty of insurrection? When was Trump charged with insurrection?

...

If you had read the article you would know that invoking the 14th amendment does not require being found guilty of insurrection in a court of law.

Because it's a Constitutional amendment, it's self-enforcing. The analogy the authors use is like the Constitutional requirement for a Presidential candidate to be at least 35 years of age and a natural born citizen. If either of those requirements is not met, a person's name cannot be put on the ballot; it's not optional; there's no gray area. Determining whether a person is disqualified from having their name on the ballot because of the 14th amendment is the responsibility of the individual or individuals who certify the ballot in each state. It's usually the Secretary of State.

If a Secretary of State somewhere did decide to keep someone's name off the ballot, it would almost certainly then be litigated in court in that state. But showing that the person was indicted for or convicted of insurrection in a court of law would not be a requirement.

a reply to: 1947boomer

And we see where it went trying to keep Obama off the ballots for his not being natural born. If an SoS in a deep red state couldnt do that, they wont be able to do it with Trump.

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: briantaylor

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Since we have this earlier thread, this is now closed.