Time to Reconsider the 14th Amendment for Trump's Role in the Insurrection (Just Security)

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:
Ryan Goodman
@rgoodlaw
·
Feb 13, 2021
A solid bipartisan majority in both chambers of Congress finding Trump guilty of inciting an insurrection.

Now points to this option: 14th Amendment disqualification from future office for those who swore an oath and gave aid and comfort to insurrection.

Time to Reconsider the 14th Amendment for Trump's Role in the Insurrection
Impeachment isn't the only way to keep Trump out of the game, writes Jim Wagstaffe. Congress should pitch 14th Amendment disqualification, too.
justsecurity.org

Ryan Goodman
@rgoodlaw
2. Even more so with extraordinary statements like #McConnell agreeing explicitly to the facts presented by the House Impeachment Managers.
2:14 PM · Feb 13, 2021

https://www.justsecurity.org/74657/time-to-reconsider-the-14th-amendment-for-trumps-role-in-the-insurrection/

As the House impeachment managers consider their approach to the Trump impeachment trial, they should take a lesson from any good baseball ace: you get strike outs by using different pitches. However, so far the Democrats are approaching the Trump Senate trial as a zero-sum ballgame, in which victory depends solely on precluding the ex-president from holding future office by obtaining a supermajority Senate conviction for the high crime of inciting an insurrection.

But let’s be frank: the Senate is not going to convict Trump by the required two-thirds majority no matter how powerful the evidence of his calculated incitement and vicious interference with the election and its congressional confirmation. Inevitably there will be some 45 or more Republicans who will vote to acquit and thereby declare victory (likely on the “jurisdictional” ground that Congress lacks authority over ex-presidents). And predictably, Trump will falsely but defiantly claim the other “v” – vindication. Yikes.

In baseball parlance, there is no such thing here as a “moral victory” no matter how much those who vote for Trump’s conviction will say they “scored some runs” in their losing effort by putting Trump’s picture on a twice-impeached presidential trading card. Now don’t get me wrong, holding Trump accountable, this time for his calculated campaign to incite violence and disrupt our democratic institutions, is an inherently laudable goal. But such a pyrrhic pursuit ignores a better strategy in this constitutional game: call for a Senate resolution – on a majority vote – that Trump’s misconduct violates the broader terms in section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

The History and Use of Section 3

Before the January insurrection, only constitutional law professors regularly ruminated about this little-known constitutional provision. The full14th Amendment is more widely known for conferring citizenship and equal protection under the law for all citizens. However, section 3 provides a lesser-known tool for the House, which could accomplish their dual purposes of holding Trump accountable and precluding him from ever holding office again.

The oft-forgotten section 3 of the 14th Amendment provides in pertinent part:

No person shall [hold any United States or state office] who, having previously taken an oath, . . .as an officer of the United States, . . . to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the (United States), or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

*snip*

[soothsayer]

1. I'm all for it. Why didn't they do this instead of impeachment?

As someone asked on another thread

[servermsh]

2. Needs a conviction in court.

And people apparently want to allow a Republican controlled Congress to disqualify a Democratic president from running again.

Amazing.

[TwilightZone]

3. Trump would need to be convicted by a court first.

https://democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2208

[Nevilledog]

4. What is the basis for thinking there needs to be a criminal conviction?

[TwilightZone]

5. Here you go.

"Congress cannot simply declare an official outside of that body ineligible under Section 3 without the concurrence of the courts. To hold otherwise would allow simple majorities in Congress to oust federal and state officials without judicial scrutiny and would subvert long-established constitutional principles, such as life tenure for federal judges and the limits of the impeachment process."

ttps://www.lawfareblog.com/14th-amendments-disqualification-provision-and-events-jan-6