Great timely article from NEWSWEEK with this headline that very one should
read and take very seriously and do more research on this topic:
“Could January 6
Insurrection Disqualify Donald Trump's 2024 Run?”
I have chosen the argument highlights from the article to make my view know: Yes, Trump should as outlined in the Constitution, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and to be disqualified from ever running for public office again … that is the law and the national standard – regardless of MAGA views, opinions, false thinking, or Trump’s wish, hope, and imagination about running for a third time to win a second term all because he can’t get over losing in 2020 – that is a fact that he reminds everyone of on a daily 24/7 basis.
He lost and he cannot accept that reality.
Trump has a lifetime need
to never lose and now to regain and stay in power anyway possible; legal or not
to him does not matter. Just power and of course tons of money along the way.
He could care less about the law of land – our Constitution and all it stands
for – it’s only about him and his desire to be and remain on top no matter.
Pros and Cons from
Legal Experts in Constitutional Law from the Story (unedited and formatted
to fit the blog on the key points):
Tall Order for
Trump: With (1) January 6 subpoena still looming on the horizon, (2) Mar-a-Lago classified documents investigation, and (3) NY State AG Letitia James lawsuit among just some of the legal woes Trump faces, at present it seems his star is
shining a little dimmer.
Even if he were to power through this laundry list of
setbacks and mount a campaign against Gov Ron DeSantis, considered the GOP's
preferred candidate, others are already plotting further legal action against
him.
A Key Point:
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) said it had
written to Trump informing him it intends to seek his disqualification if he announces his presidential bid for the2024 election.
CREW, which uses “aggressive
legal action” to hold government officials accountable, asserted Trump should
be disqualified from serving public office for his actions during the January 6
siege on the U.S. Capitol, referencing Section 3 of 14th Amendment of the Constitution
that: “Bars any official who has taken an oath to protect the Constitution from
engaging in insurrection or rebellion, or giving aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof.”
Noah Bookbinder, president of CREW, stated in a press release that the
organization's message for the former president is clear: “If you seek
office despite being disqualified under the Constitution for engaging in
insurrection, we and others loyal to the Constitution will defend it.”
Bookbinder reminded Trump
in his letter to the former president that when he was sworn into office in
January 2017, he “swore a sacred oath to defend the Constitution.”
Noteworthy:
CREW has already set in place a precedent ahead of this new action.
In June 2022, CREW, along with several law firms, helped remove
NM
county official Couy Griffin from office for his involvement in the
January 6 attack (NPR report). Griffin, a former Otero County
Commissioner, participated in several Stop the Steal rallies prior to January 6 and breached the
Capitol on the day of the riot.
Griffin was found guilty of illegally entering a restricted
area on January 6, but acquitted of another charge.
In his decision,
State District Court Judge Francis Mathew wrote: “Griffin engaged in the insurrection
even if he hadn't personally engaged in violence during the breach. By joining
the mob and trespassing on restricted Capitol grounds, Griffin contributed
to delaying Congress election-certification proceedings.”
This was the first time a
court officially ruled the January 6 riot was an insurrection. However, how
likely is it that Trump would face the same decision if he does indeed announce
his 2024 candidacy?
Preserving the
Republic:
Laurence Tribe, a professor emeritus of constitutional law at Harvard University, said in June 2022 that Trump should be prosecuted and banned from running for another term, saying there was enough evidence to show he violated section 3 of the 14th amendment.
Tribe
further wrote: “Even without a direct charge of insurrection, allegations
of such insurrectionist activities in an indictment for conspiring to defraud
the United States or to obstruct an official proceeding or for seditious
conspiracy might suffice for 14th Amendment disqualification if Trump were
convicted. Holding Trump accountable — and disqualifying him from future office
— would not be a partisan act, but one needed to preserve the republic.”
Professor Gerard Magliocca, the Samuel R. Rosen Professor at
the Indiana Robert H. McKinney School of Law, an expert in constitutional law
who has been in contact with CREW, told Newsweek: “That while the
organization had a strong Section 3 case against Donald Trump, it was hard to
predict how the Supreme
Court, which includes three Trump-picked Justices, would rule on the
matter. The Court has never interpreted Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Thus, the Justices have no track record that we can examine (in contrast to
issues such as abortion or affirmative action).”
Magliocca added: “That while Trump could be declared
ineligible after he announces his candidacy, the Supreme Court would need to
rule on his eligibility before the first primary is held, otherwise the
nominating process could be thrown into chaos. CREW and other groups may write
directly to some state election officials asking them to declare Trump
ineligible. If he is declared ineligible anywhere, then he will, of course, sue
and say that he is eligible.
Too Clever By Half: Others have shown ”a more cautious view of the challenges ahead. Jonathan Turley, the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, who has written extensively in areas including constitutional law, said he was “...highly skeptical of the prospect for these challenges” adding: “Using the 14th Amendment is too clever by half,” adding: “Our raging politics blinds many to what could be a dangerous precedent of barring opponents from office. We can then leave the Constitution alone, and leave the future of Trump to voters and to history.”
Turley, said the Section 3 provision of the 14th Amendment, was written after the 39th Congress convened in December 1865 when: “Many members were shocked to see Alexander Stephens, the Confederate vice president, waiting to take a seat with an array of other former Confederate senators and military officers. It was Justice Edwin Reade of the North Carolina Supreme Court who later explained: “The idea was that one who had taken an oath to support the Constitution and violated it, ought to be excluded from taking it again.”
Turley then argued that the events of January 6 would not meet the standard set in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment as the clause “Was created in reference to a real Civil War in which over 750,000 people died in combat. The Courts would likely expedite any challenge, though I expect most judges would find the use of the 14th amendment to be dubious on both constitutional and historical grounds.” Turley concluded: It smacks of politics by other means. The voters have ample authority to bar Trump from office through the electoral process. The 14th amendment claim is creative but equally transparent and opportunistic. It seeks to use judges to achieve what may not be attainable in the election.”
(My Insert: So, Professor Turley were the January 6 rioters (seen above) just invoking their right to keep him in office after they had already voted? Just asking.)
Attacks on our
Democracy:
CREW's Senior Vice President and Chief Counsel Donald
Sherman confirmed to Newsweek that it had not received comments from
the Trump campaign, but disputed the arguments made against its challenge.
Sherman said: “We strongly disagree with the notion that we
can or should 'leave the Constitution alone. The Constitution of the United
States is the supreme law of the land and public officials, including former
President Trump, swore an oath to support and defend it. Recent precedents in
federal and state courts, as well as legal historians and academics, have all
confirmed that Section 3 of the 14th amendment applies beyond the context of
the Civil War. On January 6, 2021, insurrectionists incited by former President
Trump accomplished something that not even the confederacy did — seizing the National
Capitol and disrupting the peaceful transfer of power. The plain text of the
14th amendment demands that participants in this insurrection be disqualified
from federal and state office. Failure to do so will only lead to escalating
attacks on our democracy.”
Conclusion: While
CREW and others set precedent for prosecuting insurrectionist actions, there is
a clear difference between prosecuting a county official and an influential
billionaire, with a track record of aggressive litigation, who is running for
president.
Neither the January 6 committee's final findings nor its
subpoena to Trump have been fully realized yet either, and may potentially
drive a case for a 14th Amendment breach further.
In light of the Republicans' results in the midterms, and growing
resentment among the GOP toward the former president, there is a possibility
that any candidacy announcement could be delayed or even canceled (thus
rendering the whole debate moot).
However the outcome, CREW's arguments are certainly among
the more sophisticated and potentially damaging challenges to Trump's plans and
may well see their day in court.
Given the pressure and backlash that independent judges have faced
investigating the former president, it would undoubtedly be a fraught case, but
the gravity of these latest obstacles ought not be understated.
My 2 Cents: Based on the
diverse and solid legal views above, minus those from Turley, which I strongly disagree
with, and the article’s conclusion the matter is clear to: When, or even if
this were to reach the USSC the only decision they should make (9-0 in my view)
is to agree to not allow Trump to run for office ever again, period.
If they truly support the
constitution, as they and every Republican now in office professes that is the
only rational decision that can be made.
If not, then simply shut up.
Also, if they continue to support
and cling to Trump as many do after all this – then may I suggest they leave
public office and go live under Chinese or Russian rule for their systems are the
same one he pursues just as Trump’s
close advisor Steve Bannon once said: “They’re going to ‘deconstruct’ the
current regulatory system.”
That BTW is the road to anarchy
designed to appease what Trump wants (my earlier post here).
Thanks for stopping by.
No comments:
Post a Comment