Donald Trump discussion Thread IX (threadbanned users listed in OP)

I think if he picked MTG he'd alienate even more floating voters

As the law stands, he can be the nominee. If the legal actions being taken in [as of now] two states at state court level were to succeed in blocking him from running on the ballot in those states [on "insurrectionist" grounds] and not be struck down by the USSC it would lose him a load of votes when it came to the final count.

While that wouldn't block him running as the GOP nominee in the other states, it would put a dent in the GOP figures when it came to final tally figures and ensure an ongoing split in that party. A win for those behind the law suits would quite probably energise others who don't want him as president in the next term.

Imagine billboards running with "Insurrectionists not welcome here" Ads at airports etc which he would have to use as transport hubs while on the stump being highlighted on TV news channels. No name used so no one stands accused but the message would be there.

Probably not. One thing that stands for the suits chances is that the "Insurrectionist" piece of law has in the constitution for some 145 years without the USSC interest in it or its validity. However, Minnesota's Court yesterday dismissed the suit in that state

A possible plus factor is that the "insurrection" piece of law does not appear to be something created or inserted into the constitution by the USSC itself which might incline the USSC not to interfere as it's line on the constitution and its amendments recently was on deleting previous amendments that previous USSC decisions had created.

I've had an unsuccessful search as to whom voted on and entered the amendment to the 14th back in 1868.

But the President is Commander in Chief of all the military! Is that a political or military title/post ?

Does it make any sense to have the 14th Amendment at all if it doesn't apply to the top elected office? Who does it exclude otherwise? Who is insurrecting to be Chief Librarian or whatever?

It's a civilian post, not military. Despite the office-holder being C-I-C, there are restraints placed on the office to avoid acts of mischief [pun].

Trump and other presidents are civilians, regardless of any US Federal or State position they may have held prior to being elected to/taking office on swearing loyalty to the constitution.

It's the extraordinary curse that Trump leaves the US with as a legacy: along with the split he created within the GOP and the increased dislike between the two parties, it seems he's succeeded in turning the lawyers and judges against each other leaving the laws of a democratic nation in flux with a rabble loose in the Capitol and in state capitols tearing the nation apart. One can only hope that he will be destroyed by the chaos he's brought about.

I agree that the language of the 14th is very wooly in relation to the position of President. It's an inexactitude that is open to exploitation by bad actors.

The Dederal society are big on ensuring the constitution is read in line with the wishes of the founders. Now granted the 14th was crafted 80yrs or so after the original constitution but, if one adopts a purely telelogical reading of the clause, and importantly of the differing oath of office.

It would appear to set the President as above the law and more particularly IMO, it affords someone such as Trump a means to commit insurrection and yet not be subject to the exclusionary clause.

It is poor drafting, but. If America, as a nation of Laws is to survive the threat that Trump's demagoguery presents? It must do it on the basis of equality before the law.

One thing must hold true and if deference to the founder's intent matters a whit to the GOP & Federalist society types? It must surely be that

There can be no more important sentence uttered by those that birthed the Nation. That some Trumpist's will argue their man is exempt from the 14th due to a poorly drafted clause?

Really should inform your opinion on how much credence they afford the founders of the State & drafters of the original constitution.

It might be that an officer of the US back in the day might have been understood to be an office-holder, not just a uniformed member of its military. That alternative understanding of the term "officer of the US" could still be understood by the judiciary at all their levels when it comes to understanding the term in lawsuits and making legal judicial decisions on the future of persons charged with insurrection under section 3 of the amendment. They, after all, can be termed as officers of the courts both federal and state.

IMO, the passing of time between the passing of the amendment into law and the present day has not changed the meaning of the term "officer of the US".

Peculiar as it may seem, Trumps desire to hold the office of the President of the US, not once but twice, should count as evidence against him that he accepts it is a desirable office of the US TO HOLD, with obligations he has to heed, not some royal ruler not bound by any rules of office.