Neal Katyal: 14th Amendment Move To Ban Trump From Future Office May Require Court Process - MSNBC

[Rhiannon12866]

MSNBC legal analyst Neal Katyal discusses how a clause in the 14th Amendment could be used to bar former-President Trump from holding public office in the future. Katyal says it may require a court process to decide on guilt or innocence.

[Rick Rolle]

1. Congress should get started on this immediately.

The sooner he is banned, the sooner we can move on to fixing all of the things he broke.

[regnaD kciN]

2. OF COURSE it requires a Court process...

If not, any party that gains a majority in both chambers of Congress could hold power indefinitely by simply voting to declare any candidate from the other party to be guilty of sedition and bar them from running.

I have no problem with us starting right away with bring sedition charges against Trump, Flynn, and anyone else responsible for 1/6.

[bucolic_frolic]

3. I see what you're saying

but this obscure clause does require enforcement of the courts, perhaps even state courts, to sort out the political banishment from the ballot and its legality. SCOTUS could leave ballot regulation to the states. They know they sit on a political powder keg with election issues. They can't even rule consistently on state gerrymandering.

A simple vote to prevent a candidate from running would not be a law. it would be challenged in courts who require evidence. Perhaps House Managers' presentation would, in this extreme case, be considered adequate proof of sedition and attack on the Constitution. Not a slam dunk, but a reasonable majority would think so, and did so, in the Senate. The courts would never uphold such a ruling if there were little evidence. Sedition and Constitutional attack is a high bar. Trump is the only one who has gone there. Ever. You simply cannot say that candidates who work within the system to exact political change, even if it involves amending the Constitution, or calling a Constitutional Convention, would be guilty of sedition. Sedition really requires violence, incitement, undermining the rule of law. Something like disbanding all courts in favor of political tribunals would be seditious, in my view, because it's seeking to overturn the system. Legal systems are for stability, and in a democracy, the greatest happiness for the greatest number.