A question about section 3 of the 14th Amendment

[solara]

Wikipedia : Amendment XIV -Section 3 :

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, 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. (emphases are mine) But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. (not likely to happen)

But, isn’t this exactly what trump is doing when he promises to pardon the folks involved in the insurrection? Not only did he foment the insurrection itself by lying to and inciting his minions, to give aid and/or comfort to the “enemies thereof” - IMHO, both of these examples show reasons why the disgraced ex-president should be kept off the ballot in November 2024.

[2naSalit]

1. Yes.

[brooklynite]

2. No.

First, I'll remind you that, legally, Trump hasn't been convicted of anything, and Courts don't issue anticipatory rulings.

Second, promising to take an action which the President is constitutionally able to do is not going to be legally interpreted as "giving aid and comfort" to insurrectionists.

[Igel]

4. I'd point to history.

Andrew Johnson pardoned the Confederate soldiers in 1868, in December. The 14th amendment was approved in July '68.

Many had been pardoned prior to that.

[dpibel]

5. Your legal analysis!

I will take it for what it is demonstrably historically worth.

Thanks!

[brooklynite]

6. I'll further point to the rulings in Michigan, Minnesota and Colorado and informing my "legal analysis"

[dpibel]

7. Good use of quotes!

Totally agree with you on that.

Not sure that your semi-cites deal with the theory in the OP.

It's strange to me that you're so hostile to a potential disqualifier.

I understand that you represent as a totally fact-based boots on the ground organizer.

I don't understand your knee-jerk opposition to any possible way to keep Trump out of the White House.

You seem to have a zero-sum approach to things that's not, IMHO, quite consistent with the world as it exists.

[brooklynite]

8. Its not that I'm "hostile"...

It's that I see no likelihood that it will happen, and my approach to politics is to avoid imagining false possibilities. Trump will be the nominee and we'll have to fight like hell to defeat him.

[dpibel]

9. And every chip in his wall helps

Some people--other than you--may wonder why the 14th doesn't apply to Trump.

What is the harm in putting that out there?

Sure. He's going to be the nominee.

If there are 678 people out there who believe that he shouldn't be because of the 14th, well. that's 678 votes.

What, precisely, is your problem with that?

Do you really think there are 4 voters out there who are going to say, "I'm voting for Trump cuz the 14th is bullshit"?

[brooklynite]

11. Some people - other than me - have no clue that the 14th Amendment-Article 3 exists...

Your 678 votes are already in our bank. The average voter we're trying to win over is thinking about the economy, immigration, health care, etc.

[elleng]

3. Yes

[onenote]

10. Some history suggests the answer is no.

In 1794, two men were convicted of treason for their role in the Whiskey Rebellion and sentenced to death. A year later, after twice staying their execution, President George Washington exercised his constitutional power to pardon the two men. Washington also pardoned a group of Whiskey Rebellion plotters who were indicted for treason but had not yet been tried.

Given this history, and while acknowledging that the 14th amendment came after Washington's presidency, the chances that the exercise of that power would be treated as giving comfort to the January 6 insurrectionists seem pretty slim (since by the same logic, Washington's pardons could be viewed as giving comfort to traitors). If it could be shown that Trump promised the pardons before January 6, the situation arguably would be different, although by no means certain.