Hearings began this week on whether the 14th Amendment disqualifies Donald Trump from running for president in 2024 because of his actions around the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
On Monday morning in Denver, a historic five-day evidentiary hearing began for a lawsuit filed against Trump by six Republican and unaffiliated Colorado voters represented by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
A similar hearing is set for Thursday in Minneapolis.
CREW President Noah Bookbinder has said that his organization brought its suit in Colorado because “it is necessary to defend our republic both today and in the future.” The group’s complaint accuses Trump of inciting and aiding the mob at the Capitol two years ago, which he denies. He was impeached on similar charges but acquitted by Republicans in the Senate.
Trump performed a failed coup, I’m okay with going after others that perform coups.
There’s no conviction so we can’t legally says he’s culpable.
The 14th says nothing about a conviction being necessary.
It’s a bit sticky. But yeah, I’d find him in violation of the 14th in 1.433 seconds flat.
Doesn’t matter. Ordinary soldiers for the Confederate army were never convicted either but they were banned regardless.
Yep! And precedent seems like it should weigh heavily. But “no conviction” is the obvious legal road to follow. And his lawyers will follow that road.
Don’t they have to show that one is needed? The Constitution doesn’t say one is.
The 14th shouldn’t need to say a conviction is necessary. It should be obvious a conviction is necessary, otherwise you could derail anyone running for President just by accusing them of sedition then claiming the 14th.
The part of the 14th amendment that would bar someone from being president for engaging in insurrection is worded kind of similarly to article II where it lays out qualifications for president
Compare that to
You don’t need to be convicted of not being a natural-born citizen to be barred from being president, and in fact you can’t, it’s not a crime. And neither do you need to be convicted of insurrection. These clauses in the Constitution stand on their own.
So a conviction for something isn’t necessary for someone to be barred from office for that thing.
The Constitution could just as easily say “No person shall be president who has worn socks with sandals.” That doesn’t mean wearing socks with sandals is illegal, just that you can’t be president if you’ve done it. You can’t be convicted of it because it’s not a crime (fashion crimes aren’t actually crimes.)
Of course if it was illegal, a conviction or lackthereof could certainly be brought up to support or oppose any challenge to whether someone is qualified, and while a conviction would certainly be pretty damn compelling evidence, it still may not necessarily make or break the argument in either direction because we live in a world of legal loopholes, weird precedents, and government officials exercising their discretion however they see fit.
Fair point! But there’s a burden of proof that, to my knowledge, hasn’t been tested.