I expect there to be lots of litigation over this issue. Here is an article discussing the arguments for and against the 14th amendment applying to Trump.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/08/22/can-trump-be-disqualified-from-the-presidency-why-even-conservative-legal-experts-are-in-favor-of-it/
We already known this is a winner in New Mexico.
Wouldn't surprise me if California, Oregon and Washington all went this route. Haven't heard anything about it here in California yet.
I'll take a shot. And please know that I am no fan of Donald Trump's.
The "engaged in insurrection or rebellion...or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" is vague, likely devised to be so vague in order that it can't be used frivously by the average joe (example: here in Kitchen Sink, LOL) OR a politician on the opposite side, persons with only their own bias as relates those terms and their application to government leadership.
Under Key Facts: All the conservative legal scholars, experts, law school professors weigh in, same on and on arguments. Other side does as well.
Under Chief Critic: The quote from McConnell, that "The amendment should be interpreted as... an enormous last result and maybe January 6 rose to that level...But whether it's actually an insurrection. I think it's a bit of a stretch." Multiple trial outcomes of the January 6 participants haven't yet reflected insurrection of the government of the United States as such. Some wanted Trump back in office, others went along, others were hotheads who admittedly just followed along for their own momentary glory. Some expressed embarrassment that they participated.
So with all those legal minds weighing in (both sides...I haven't the stamina to read it word for word or comment word for word), who is to say? Will it go to the Supreme Court?
But IMHO no, not any, none, nada drastic measure, especially one that threatens our form of government, should be taken on a "bit of a stretch."
Candy
Edited to say that I didn't answer the question posed, "How Many States..." Sorry. I have no idea.
I doubt being indicted is enough to qualify for the Constituional requirement. Unfortunately its not enough to disqualify him from being favored by his base of authoritarian white nationalists.
Nobody at the debate last night took away any of his thunder.
The actual answer is - None
Originally posted by: O2bnVegas
I'll take a shot. And please know that I am no fan of Donald Trump's.
The "engaged in insurrection or rebellion...or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" is vague, likely devised to be so vague in order that it can't be used frivously by the average joe (example: here in Kitchen Sink, LOL) OR a politician on the opposite side, persons with only their own bias as relates those terms and their application to government leadership.
Under Key Facts: All the conservative legal scholars, experts, law school professors weigh in, same on and on arguments. Other side does as well.
Under Chief Critic: The quote from McConnell, that "The amendment should be interpreted as... an enormous last result and maybe January 6 rose to that level...But whether it's actually an insurrection. I think it's a bit of a stretch." Multiple trial outcomes of the January 6 participants haven't yet reflected insurrection of the government of the United States as such. Some wanted Trump back in office, others went along, others were hotheads who admittedly just followed along for their own momentary glory. Some expressed embarrassment that they participated.
So with all those legal minds weighing in (both sides...I haven't the stamina to read it word for word or comment word for word), who is to say? Will it go to the Supreme Court?
But IMHO no, not any, none, nada drastic measure, especially one that threatens our form of government, should be taken on a "bit of a stretch."
Candy
Edited to say that I didn't answer the question posed, "How Many States..." Sorry. I have no idea.
"Multiple trial outcomes of the January 6 participants haven't yet reflected insurrection of the government of the United States as such. Some wanted Trump back in office, others went along, others were hotheads who admittedly just followed along for their own momentary glory."
The insurrection was not the violence that occurred on 1/6 by the invaders of the Capitol. It was the months-long conspiracy that was concocted and executed by Trump, John Eastman, Sydney Powell, Giuliani, Roger Stone, and the others.
The planning for the fake electors scheme began even before election day when it looked like Trump was going to lose. The insurrection involved the pressure on and intimidation of election officials and secretaries of state to change the vote totals and award their states' electoral votes to Trump.
Even after all legal challenges had been exhausted, Trump refused to allow the peaceful transfer of power.
That's what constitutes the insurrection.
Originally posted by: Jeff
"Multiple trial outcomes of the January 6 participants haven't yet reflected insurrection of the government of the United States as such. Some wanted Trump back in office, others went along, others were hotheads who admittedly just followed along for their own momentary glory."
The insurrection was not the violence that occurred on 1/6 by the invaders of the Capitol. It was the months-long conspiracy that was concocted and executed by Trump, John Eastman, Sydney Powell, Giuliani, Roger Stone, and the others.
The planning for the fake electors scheme began even before election day when it looked like Trump was going to lose. The insurrection involved the pressure on and intimidation of election officials and secretaries of state to change the vote totals and award their states' electoral votes to Trump.
Even after all legal challenges had been exhausted, Trump refused to allow the peaceful transfer of power.
That's what constitutes the insurrection.
Everything you said here that happened is a lie.
Originally posted by: O2bnVegas
I'll take a shot. And please know that I am no fan of Donald Trump's.
The "engaged in insurrection or rebellion...or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" is vague, likely devised to be so vague in order that it can't be used frivously by the average joe (example: here in Kitchen Sink, LOL) OR a politician on the opposite side, persons with only their own bias as relates those terms and their application to government leadership.
Under Key Facts: All the conservative legal scholars, experts, law school professors weigh in, same on and on arguments. Other side does as well.
Under Chief Critic: The quote from McConnell, that "The amendment should be interpreted as... an enormous last result and maybe January 6 rose to that level...But whether it's actually an insurrection. I think it's a bit of a stretch." Multiple trial outcomes of the January 6 participants haven't yet reflected insurrection of the government of the United States as such. Some wanted Trump back in office, others went along, others were hotheads who admittedly just followed along for their own momentary glory. Some expressed embarrassment that they participated.
So with all those legal minds weighing in (both sides...I haven't the stamina to read it word for word or comment word for word), who is to say? Will it go to the Supreme Court?
But IMHO no, not any, none, nada drastic measure, especially one that threatens our form of government, should be taken on a "bit of a stretch."
Candy
Edited to say that I didn't answer the question posed, "How Many States..." Sorry. I have no idea.
"Will it go to the Supreme Court?"
It would, without a doubt, go to the Supreme Court. The most likely outcome would be similar to the outcome of Bush v. Gore, that is it would likely be decided along political lines.
There's a chance, though, that Roberts would actually base his vote on his non-partisan interpretation of the Constitution, and an outside chance that Kavanaugh or Barrett might do the same.
If Republican appointees decided against Trump, the historic decision would go a long way in reestablishing the Court's moral authority and public respect. Reestablishing that respect for the Court is extremely important to Roberts and could be as well to Kavanaugh and Barrett. Gorsuch could also be a wild card.
It's a fascinating question, but I have no opnion on the complex interpretation of the clause in question as it applies to the 2020 insurrection.
I'm not sure Democrats will even push for it. Why bother? Biden has a much better chance of being elected against Trump compared to Nikki Haley. And with Trump on the ticket every swing state Senator and House member will have to weigh in on Jan 6th, Trump's indictments and abortion.
Democrats will take that battle ground any day.
Originally posted by: PJ Stroh
I'm not sure Democrats will even push for it. Why bother? Biden has a much better chance of being elected against Trump compared to Nikki Haley. And with Trump on the ticket every swing state Senator and House member will have to weigh in on Jan 6th, Trump's indictments and abortion.
Democrats will take that battle ground any day.
And they will lose. America has had enough of the corrupt DemocRats and brain dead Biden.
