Fogbow

Thanks bob. P'raps I was overly focusing on Trump. If I understand it correctly, the 14A bar affects all state and federal offices, and to be barred one must have:
(1) have been in an applicable role, which is (roughly) in a legislature, judiciary or executive officer at state or federal level,
(2) taken an oath to support the constitution, and
(3) engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the constititution.
As you say, enforcing the bar is a separate issue.

I wonder how deep the applicable roles in (1) go? Some are clear, and certainly an ex-president is included! It doesn't just include any employee of federal or state government who has taken an oath, does it? I don't know whether (for example) teachers swear oaths.

It would be amusing to see lots of "patriots" told "no, you were at J6, you can't go on the ballot for Turd Creek dog catcher."

Jim Acosta had the two esteemed gentlemen on his show Saturday afternoon, I found it very helpful for this to understand their point. Worth hunting down if one can find it. I like the idea that if some states refuse to put him on the ballot, it will force it to the courts for a decision.

They were also on with Ali Velshi either Friday or yesterday.

Kendra wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 4:29 pm Jim Acosta had the two esteemed gentlemen on his show Saturday afternoon, I found it very helpful for this to understand their point. Worth hunting down if one can find it. I like the idea that if some states refuse to put him on the ballot, it will force it to the courts for a decision.

Here you go.

Good, thank you.

bob wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 12:02 pm
Both are possible. IIRC, some down ballot insurrecting candidate was blocked from a ballot. And some minor Republican candidate (remember, there are dozens and dozens) is suing the quadfectee over his potential disqualification.

A county commissioner was removed from office in New Mexico for participating in the insurrection.
New Mexico bars commissioner from office for insurrection

As for the only way to get him to shut up is pre-trial detention, well, that is not going to happen, nor is it absolutely necessary. The judge has already said that free speech has limits and if he cannot abide by that on Social Media, they she orders it shut down. That would be the equivalent to pre-trial detention for him.

Publically, the lawyers would protest, privately, they would be quite pleased.

HuffPo: GOP Candidate Asa Hutchinson Says Trump May Be Disqualified From Presidency:

"I think it’s a serious jeopardy for Donald Trump under our Constitution, not being qualified," the former Arkansas governor said.

Republican presidential candidate Asa Hutchinson said Donald Trump may be disqualified from becoming president due to a section of the Constitution that bars anyone who has engaged in insurrection from holding office.

* * *

Asked how he expected this to be enforced, Hutchinson, a former federal prosecutor, said a lawsuit would have to find that Trump engaged in an insurrection, thus disqualifying him.

That's some serious passive voice: As a at-least-middling candidate, Hutchinson could be the person to file that lawsuit.

“I expect some states to take that action, but I think it’s a serious jeopardy for Donald Trump under our Constitution, not being qualified,” he added.

There's whispers that Newsom will seek a way to bar the quadfectee from the California ballot.

NBC: Pushing Trump's federal Jan. 6 case to 2026 would deny public a speedy trial, DOJ says:

Special counsel Jack Smith knocked Donald Trump's request to delay his federal election interference trial for more than two and a half years.

Delaying Donald Trump's federal trial for his efforts to stop the peaceful transfer of power until 2026 would "deny the public its right to a speedy trial," federal prosecutors for special counsel Jack Smith wrote in a court filing on Monday.

"In service of a proposed trial date in 2026 that would deny the public its right to a speedy trial, the defendant cites inapposite statistics and cases, overstates the amount of new and non-duplicative discovery, and exaggerates the challenge of reviewing it effectively," Smith's team wrote, responding to Trump's request to delay the trial until April 2026.

The DOJ's reply.

The public does not have any right to trial at all, speedy or otherwise.

Foggy wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 8:33 pm The public does not have any right to trial at all, speedy or otherwise.

Maybe not in the legal sense, but I think that, in a case like this, the public does have the right to a resolution, and not two and a half years from now.

Foggy wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 8:33 pm The public does not have any right to trial at all, speedy or otherwise.

I can't tell if you are being facetious or not but the case is USA v Trump so we all have a stake and I think Jack Smith is saying the USA has a right as much as the defendant to a speedy trial while preserving the defendants rights. But WTF do I know?

They should just put him in jail and then see whether he desires a speedy trial.

much ado wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 10:22 pm They should just put him in jail and then see whether he desires a speedy trial.

"Thank you Mr. Trump. Your proposed 2026 trial date isn't a problem. However due to issues with your erratic behavior it seems the court might decide you must be in federal custody until your trial commences. Do you wish to reconsider your request for a delay to the trial?"

Sam the Centipede wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 2:24 am

much ado wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 10:22 pm They should just put him in jail and then see whether he desires a speedy trial.

"Thank you Mr. Trump. Your proposed 2026 trial date isn't a problem. However due to issues with your erratic behavior it seems the court might decide you must be in federal custody until your trial commences. Do you wish to reconsider your request for a delay to the trial?"

Exactly.

The companies providing phone services to inmates will like that idea also too

Special hotline and service charges included. Dang - the prisons will have to add extra empoyees to screen his calls for contraband ....

Shy wallflower Mark Levin is going WILD over this 14th Amendment idea. He calls Tribe and Luttig "morons" who "haven't been right about anything in 20 years". He yells at Asa Hutchinson's quote. He quibbles whether the president is an "officer". He quotes a Robert Peck, founder of the Center for Constitutional Litigation saying it would be up to Congress to decide if the quadfectee* participated in insurrection.

Levin originally supported Ted Cruz:

Oh Dear – Mark Levin Credibility Melts Like Glenn Beck Tears – Levin Family is Staffer for Senator Cruz…
January 21, 2016 | Sundance | 806 Comments
There’s something initially angering that becomes very sad when a fraud is revealed. Tonight on his radio show Mark Levin was forced to admit the son of his fiance’ is a full time staffer for Senator Ted Cruz

.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/bl ... ator-cruz/

Tonight, Mark Levin railed on "where the Democrat Party and Trump haters are dragging the country every damn day into uncharted waters". "A Manhattan DA bringing bogus indictments against a former president whose running for election. A phony Special Counsel who uses a documents matter and the Espionage Act". "As well as these January 6 Grand Jury charges against the president using the Klan Act, the Enron laws and financial obstruct -- that have nothing to do with this". "And the Georgia DA who apparently thinks she's a federal prosecutor which would be bad enough -- did you know her father was an active member of the Black Panthers, Mr. Producer?" "They were considered domestic terrorists trying to overthrow the country. Isn't that ironic?"

Mark Levin is a screaming, lying hack. Here's the article from Tribe and Luttig (who, unlike Levin, were actual judges). With the hollering, anger and vitriol he has over this article, in birther talk, "WE ARE OVER THE TARGET". This story is amazing:

The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again
The only question is whether American citizens today can uphold that commitment.
By J. Michael Luttig and Laurence H. Tribe
AUGUST 19, 2023

As students of the United States Constitution for many decades—one of us as a U.S. Court of Appeals judge, the other as a professor of constitutional law, and both as constitutional advocates, scholars, and practitioners—we long ago came to the conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment, the amendment ratified in 1868 that represents our nation’s second founding and a new birth of freedom, contains within it a protection against the dissolution of the republic by a treasonous president.

This protection, embodied in the amendment’s often-overlooked Section 3, automatically excludes from future office and position of power in the United States government—and also from any equivalent office and position of power in the sovereign states and their subdivisions—any person who has taken an oath to support and defend our Constitution and thereafter rebels against that sacred charter, either through overt insurrection or by giving aid or comfort to the Constitution’s enemies.

The historically unprecedented federal and state indictments of former President Donald Trump have prompted many to ask whether his conviction pursuant to any or all of these indictments would be either necessary or sufficient to deny him the office of the presidency in 2024.

Having thought long and deeply about the text, history, and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause for much of our professional careers, both of us concluded some years ago that, in fact, a conviction would be beside the point. The disqualification clause operates independently of any such criminal proceedings and, indeed, also independently of impeachment proceedings and of congressional legislation. The clause was designed to operate directly and immediately upon those who betray their oaths to the Constitution, whether by taking up arms to overturn our government or by waging war on our government by attempting to overturn a presidential election through a bloodless coup.

The former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and the resulting attack on the U.S. Capitol, place him squarely within the ambit of the disqualification clause, and he is therefore ineligible to serve as president ever again. The most pressing constitutional question facing our country at this moment, then, is whether we will abide by this clear command of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause.

► Show Spoiler

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... cy/675048/

Excellent. Keep this moving through the election cycle. MAGAts will dismiss and ignore it, but for a general election it's one more thing people will think of when they vote.

Mark tweets and says the highest official that this could be used for is Senator. He said John Roberts spoke to it in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board in a 2010 opinion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Ente ... ight_Board. In this opinion, Levin says Roberts said that "officers" are NOT elected officials, appointed by Article 2 Section 2 procedures**.

He thinks the question whether a president may be considered an officer of the US for purposes of this section. He says there's no certified answer to this question.

Mark R. Levin @marklevinshow
Tribe and Luttig have written a self-humiliating piece in the leftwing Atlantic Monthly arguing that the Constitution's Sec. 3 of the 14th amendment stops Trump from being elected president. This has to be one of the truly dumbest essays ever written on the subject. And it is something the Marxist left has been pushing for years against Trump. Trump aside, they are burning down one institution after another self-righteously claiming that they are standing up to tyranny and for the republic. I will address this on the air tonight.

*I'm so glad I thought about it and added Quadfecta, I looked up if there actually was a Quadfecta, had only heard about Trifectas. It opened the door for Bob's hilarious use of "Quadfectee" and I burst out laughing every time I see that. How humiliating for T****... I don't care how much he bloviates, late at night, when he's all alone, he knows he destroyed his legacy and will always be known as a twice-impeached, one-term Quadfectee. It's really a nice image after everything he put the nation through.

** If this keeps up, it needs a new topic. These are really interesting constitutional issues to me, with qualified people on both sides. Haven't studied it in detail, but I'd think that Luttig and Tribe know what they're saying and wouldn't put it in public if they had doubts.

Foggy, it might be good for the previous indicateds to put the INDICATED #X in the topic titles to make it easier for people to find each indicted. That this is something needs to be broken down to clarify indicateds about a former president is really mind blowing.

The word trifecta is a portmanteau originally from the horse racing world for correctly picking the 1st, 2nd and 3rd placed horse in a race........

The word used for picking 4 is waaaaaay better than quadrafecta and so much Betta for The Great Sand Worm......

It's a SUPERPERFECTA......

It sure is a SUPERPEFECTA!

AZ Law has a lengthy article up dealing with the Disqualifying Clause. Since this will affect 50 states (and territories), AZ Law focuses on Arizona but notes this is going to be everywhere.

CONCLUSION: Prior to the publication of The Atlantic article by Judge Luttig and Prof. Tribe, we had followed the disqualification clause discussion with some interest as a fascinating topic. With that article, litigation concerning it became a certainty. Litigation that most assuredly will end up in the United States Supreme Court (quickly). An examination of Arizona’s PPE schedule, similarly approaching in many states, demonstrates that such litigation will come soon.

Therefore, buckle up. It may be a wild ride. But, this should not be approached as a partisan political brawl - we have had enough of those. Rather, this will be a fascinating fight over a previously uninterpreted clause in the United States Constitution. Hopefully, all sides will have excellent lawyers who are acting professionally, and with civility.

It will likely take place in several judicial systems, and they will hopefully all get the cases decided in a timely manner. True, for some watching, it will have high stakes due to their partisan bents. For all, it should be interesting to watch such legal battles being handled as they should be.

Yelling. Screaming. Accusing. Name calling. Will not change the results. Maybe, the roar will only be dull. We can only hope.

https://arizonaslaw.blogspot.com/2023/0 ... ctive.html

This feels like a new topic, but since INDICATED #3 is related to T****'s activities related to the riot/insurrection, until the wild ride starts it should be fine here.

Funny that while most legal experts are thinking about this serious issue, Leo is hanging on a branch with Josh Barnett* (elected to nothing) and anonymous X users commanding that legislatures should just revise the manner of choosing electors and, I guess, make T**** king.


For all his screaming, Josh Barnett has only been an electoral LOSER.


After this tweet, I reckon free speech absolutist Josh will block me. But this was worth it.


Josh Barnett-AZ @BarnettforAZ 2024 AZ State Senate LD 2 candidate, Republican, America First, small business owner, published Amazon best selling author “Saving America”
6,698 Following 120.3K Followers
Followed by Leo Donofrio, Esq., Pam Hemphill #StopTheSpin

Josh Barnett-AZ @BarnettforAZ
Please share this link with all your friends in State Leg District 2 to get me on the AZ State Senate race ballot. WE have a state to save. It starts right here at the local level. https://go.azsos.gov/wvpd
12:50 PM · Jul 25, 2023 83 Likes

Luke Johnson @Orly_licious 54s
Josh, have you been elected to any office? Your bio says "2024 AZ State Senate candidate" but here you're saying you need signatures. You've suggested huge moves like changing how electors are chosen for the presidential race. Why not team up with someone who's actually won?

Photos of his losses were attached to the post (Self-amused)

Reality Check wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 10:18 pm

Foggy wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 8:33 pm The public does not have any right to trial at all, speedy or otherwise.

I can't tell if you are being facetious or not but the case is USA v Trump so we all have a stake...

Here's why I said that.

Suppose he pleads guilty eventually. Well, sir, I am a member of the public and I have a right to a trial. Even if I have nothing to do with the case and no idea what I'm doing. Not a plea bargain. Not a dismissal, or any other outcome. I call upon my supporter to demand a trial.

Of course, what's true for one case in the federal court ought to apply to every other case. Trust me when I say that every criminal case in federal court is styled "United States vs. Bad Guy Accused Person(s)".

And if any of us can demand a trial in any case, the American system of justice will grind to a halt. Something like 97% of cases don't go to trial. Hoo boy, we're gonna need a lot of juries.

The public certainly has an interest in the speedy administration of justice. But there's a difference between an interest and a right. A right, in this context, is a legal term, and Jack Smith should know better than to say the public has a right to anything at all in a criminal case.

If our rights are derived from Constitution, it doesn’t mention the public having any rights. If our rights are derived from the nature of what it means to be a sentient animal, there's still nothing in the Constitution or any other legal source that gives the public anything more than a mere interest in the speedy and accurate administration of justice. If our rights are derived from the deity of your choice, same answer. The Holy Bible doesn't grant trial rights to the public.

Nothing does.

The public does not have any right to trial at all, speedy or otherwise

Brandi is live tweeting the DC hearing to set court date. Good stuff

So is Adam Klasfeld @KlasfeldReports.

Chutkan announces 10 minute break, after which she will return and announce trial date.

10 minute break, then judge will give court date.

March 4, 2024.