Please stop w/the Trump running in 2024 "stuff" because he can't. 14th Amendment Section 3

[Botany]

Trump saying he will run again is just a vehicle for him to grift from his rubes and or hoping to forestall
his upcoming criminal trials and prosecution. The DoJ, the Congress (they can refer things to the DoJ),
Fani Willis in Georgia, and the IRS all have the receipts on Trump and company's crimes. I really doubt
that shits like Mark Meadows, Flynn, Rudy, Stone, and so on will take the fall for Trump


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 . . .

snip

Section Three is once again relevant due to the extraordinary events at the Capitol and the widespread condemnation of the attack as an insurrection by Republicans and Democrats in Congress. This characterization, reinforced by the article of impeachment adopted by the House of Representatives that expressly invoked Section Three, strongly suggests that anyone who “shall have engaged” in that insurrection after having sworn an oath to protect the Constitution is now ineligible to serve.

https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/enforcing-the-14th-amendments-bar-on-insurrectionist-officers-and-candidates/

[Lovie777]

1. RWers want to completely redo the Constitution in their own image .....

[ProudMNDemocrat]

3. Thom Hartman had a show about that a few weeks ago that was quite startling.

It was telling how Republicans need several more state houses to take over for a Constitutional Convention to take place. But he also stated that it could take years to redraft the Constitution due to the complexities as to who would have rights, and who would not. Repealing the 13th, 14th, 16th, 17th, and 19th Amendments will not be easy. Nor rewriting the Bill of Rights will be a cakewalk.

[Mad_Machine76]

27. Plus

38 states would have to ratify for any proposed changes to become law. We need to keep our eyes on this but unless some blue states get completely taken over by radical right-wing Republicans, it will be hard for them to reach the designated number of states to even call for a convention, much less ratify any changes to the Constitution.

[msfiddlestix]

2. Thank you for posting this clause, we'll look upon it with wistful memories as we remember the time

when such things could be relied upon as a respected and important component to our democratic form of government which will no longer exist once that is violated.

[Scrivener7]

4. Sadly, this.

[jimfields33]

14. I suspect he'll announce his run November 9th

I don’t think he will win in 2024.

[msfiddlestix]

23. In my view, he's been campaigning for 2024, unofficially.

those who say, 'he's not running', based on the Constituion or based on the fact that he hasn't filed, is to me, irrelavant because all norms, legally speaking, ethically speaking, practically speaking, etc no longer have any bearing on reality.

No longer can we assume safeguards against misignant forces remain in place as a defender of our democracy.

We can only hope our one and only existing avenue of defense, the power of the ballot, remains in place despite all efforts to invalidate it's legitimacy.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

28. He is still a Private Citizen when a candidate.

So he can indeed still be indicted for crimes when he was POTUS.

[FBaggins]

5. Flat untrue - How many times must this be debunked?

Unless he is actually convicted on the crime of insurrection or the senate votes by 2/3... the only way to beat him is at the polls (either primary or general).

[SharonClark]

8. Exactly this.

[Botany]

9. "They" have the receipts

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142987874

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/top-national-security-prosecutor-joins-trump-mar-a-lago-investigation/ar-AA13uqDd

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/21/trump-criminal-referral-sent-to-prosecutors-and-irs-by-letitia-james.html

America has had 3 people who were found guilty of espionage @ the level which Trump might have very well
been at and they were the Rosenbergs (executed) and FBI Agent Robert Hansen (15 life sentences Colorado Super Max)

Although, I think I have the same fears that you do and that is what would happen if the republicans took back
power? I think so many republicans were involved in the attempted J-6 coup and had knowledge of the Trump
Russia connection they will fight like hell to keep things "all covered up."

FBaggins

[FBaggins]

12. No doubt - but it doesn't matter

If your county passes a law that says that you can't be a police officer if you exceed the speed limit - it wouldn't matter even if you were caught on camera doing it and everyone in town believed it. Unless you're convicted in court of speeding, the penalty can't be applied.

It sure looks to us as though they have "the receipts," - but unless they charge and convict him, it doesn't matter (as far as 14A goes). And the conviction must be for insurrection. Incitement to riot won't do it... and certainly not fraud by a company that he owns.

[Treefrog]

24. This.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

29. Am 14, S. 3 is not a criminal penalty; it is a Constitutional qualification for office.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/analysis/the-couy-griffin-case-frequently-asked-questions/

[J_William_Ryan]

6. As noted in the article,

the problem would be enforcing a Section Three action.

[GoCubsGo]

7. He can't afford to do so, anyway.

If he runs, he loses his "Save America" PAC (a.k.a., SAP--as in you're a sap if you contribute to it) cash cow. And, the RNC will cease to pay his legal bills, which are likely through the roof at this point. They're almost certainly going to get worse.

[Chainfire]

10. It is not an insurrection until a jury says it was an insurrection.

It doesn't go to a jury without an indictment. Where is the indictment?

[ColinC]

11. Perhaps the doj is using this

Maybe suggesting to him that they will not charge him with insurrection if he does not run🤷‍♂️

[Chainfire]

13. It is a special legal theory known as "Dives et potens"

If you don't rob the bank again we will not charge you for robbing the bank this time.

[brooklynite]

15. Please stop with the "Trump can't run because of the 14th Amendment" threads because he can.

Insurrection isn’t a “we know it when we see it” definition. He hasn’t been indicted much less convicted of anything. Nothing will prevent him from running g if he wants to.

[Botany]

16. The documents found on his property @ Merde a Logo should very well stop Trump

n/t

[Scrivener7]

17. Absolutely. But unless he's convicted, they can't.

[brooklynite]

21. Violation of the Presidential records act does it constitute "insurrection".

And if you’re going to tell me he sold documents, that’s also not insurrection and hasn’t. Den proven. We don’t block candidates based on “we know he did” assertions.

[Botany]

25. "Violation of the Presidential records act" is a serious charge but what they will get him on is

espionage. He had documents about foreign intelligence assets both American and foreign and
HIGHLY CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS ABOUT OUR SPY SATELLITES. I have a family member who
worked in that program and to this day she/he can not say one word about it. Why he is still
walking free is beyond me. Even though Putin invaded Ukraine for a 2nd time after TFG was no
longer in office we have had remote sensing satellites in geosynchronous orbit over Ukraine and
that part of the world for years and I have no doubt that some of the stolen documents had
information on that program and since Trump is an active Russian asset he gave up that info
to Putin.

[brooklynite]

26. Again, espionage requires proof beyond possession.

"I have no doubt" is not an argument to make in Court.

[FBaggins]

18. And how likely is a jury without a single MAGA member?

Any judge who would allow a "did you vote for Trump?" question to disqualify a juror would have to allow a "did you vote against Trump" question to do the same.

[sarisataka]

19. I always find it odd

When people post a link that undercuts their claim.

It clearly says enforcement would be up to the courts and suggests Congress adopt a resolution that he is ineligible (something they have not done). However the author notes-

... a concurrent resolution of Congress declaring that Trump is ineligible does not make him ineligible. 

[Autumn]

20. Who is going to respect that rule? Republicans?

That's a joke because they respect nothing.

[newdayneeded]

22. Who or what is gonna stop him?

So far all I've seen is the J6 committee document his wrong doings and a visit to his property to take back some documents, and then leave with a cordial good bye.