Want to see Trump prohibited from registering as a candidate for the Precedential Election in your state?

Take a look at this news video: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/challenging-donald-trump-s-qualification-for-election-from-your-email-inbox/vi-AA1fODIH?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=a5c4ae6cae22461b83eafcde2eb25f07&ei=53

The video clearly explains the legality of it (under the 14th Amendment) and Dean Obeidallah at https://deanobeidallah.com/ has a form letter you can request and email to your State's Attorney General.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

beckyromero · 36-40, FVIP

I would love to see U.S. Supreme Court uphold the barring of Trump as a candidate or holding any office of the United States.

It's the 14th Amendment's wording that would be at the center of it all.

Section 3

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, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Trump would argue that there hasn't been an "insurrection or rebellion" because no one has been charged with that crime.

On the other hand, four members of the Proud Boys were found guilty of seditious conspiracy for their actions before and during the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. And that a seditious conspiracy to prevent the peaceful transfer of power is not different than an insurrection.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/jury-convicts-four-leaders-proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy-related-us-capitol-breach

Trump certainly sent them signals.

[media=https://youtu.be/qIHhB1ZMV_o]

ElwoodBlues · M

@beckyromero That would be wonderful. But a few years back SCOTUS decided that the emoluments clause was toothless and meaningless, so I don't have high hopes for them finding any teeth for 14.3.

KunsanVeteran · M

@beckyromero It does not require a conviction.

This message was deleted by its author.

calicuz · 56-60, M

@beckyromero

Yes, it's all in the wording, and I believe we should let the Supreme Court rule on the translation of that Amendment.

The question though, is technically, he was never on the grounds of the Capitol, so the Supreme Court would have to rule on whether "inciting" is the same as "engaging in."

Ontheroad · M

@calicuz Case law and rulings by SCOTUS would seem to favor upholding the case of incitement as a chargeable offense, but only if the incitement brought about substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

“The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”

calicuz · 56-60, M

@Ontheroad

Sounds solid to me. 👍🏼