Trump 14th Amendment Eligibility Cases

[Kriselda Gray]

IMG_5629.png

I've got to stop reading his bullshit. I'm getting to where it's actually, literally making me nauseous.

[bill_g]

IMG_5629.png

"Almost all" is the DJT equivalent of "98% of all statistics are made up".

[p0rtia]

I was reminded of who I am and why I am here when I found myself tearing up upon reading the first sentence. Whatever "justice" means, this is a brave example for me. Apologies for the (lack of) formatting.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-co ... .06_01.pdf

Screenshot 2023-09-06 at 12.46.15 PM.png (68.78 KiB) Viewed 20949 times

1
Petitioners Norma Anderson, Michelle Priola, Claudine Cmarada, Krista Kafer, Kathi
Wright, and Christopher Castilian, eligible Colorado electors, bring this action under C.R.S.
§ 1-4-1204(4), § 1-1-113(1), § 13-51-105, and C.R.C.P. 57(a), to challenge the listing of
Respondent Donald J. Trump as a candidate on the 2024 Republican presidential primary
election ballot and any future election ballot, based on his disqualification from public office
under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Petitioners seek an order declaring Trump disqualified under the Fourteenth Amendment and
enjoining Respondent Secretary of State Jena Griswold (the “Secretary”) from taking any action
that would allow him to access the ballot. Under C.R.S. §1-4-1204(4) and C.R.C.P. 57(m),
Petitioners respectfully request and are entitled to an expedited hearing on this Petition.

INTRODUCTION

1. Donald Trump tried to overthrow the results of the 2020 presidential election.
Before the election, he made plans to cast doubt on and undermine confidence in our nation’s
election infrastructure. After the election, he knowingly sought to subvert our Constitution and
system of elections through a sustained campaign of lies. His efforts culminated on January 6,
2021, when he incited, exacerbated, and otherwise engaged in a violent insurrection at the United
States Capitol by a mob who believed they were following his orders, and refused to protect the
Capitol or call off the mob for nearly three hours as the attack unfolded.

2. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election and interfere with the peaceful
transfer of power were part of an insurrection against the Constitution of the United States.
Because Trump took these actions after he swore an oath to support the Constitution, Section 3
of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits him from being President and from qualifying for the
Colorado ballot for President in 2024. Petitioners bring this action now to protect the rights of
Republican and Independent voters to fully participate in the upcoming primary election by
ensuring that votes cast will be for those constitutionally qualified to hold office, that a
disqualified candidate does not siphon off support from their candidates of choice, and that
voters are not deprived of the chance to vote for a qualified candidate in the general election.

[realist]

This one is on the SCOTUS docket re 14th Amendment. A Petition for Certiorari has been filed and set for conference 9/26/23. I'm going to go out on a limb and say Cert will be denied.

Docket for 23-117

"Title: John Castro, Petitioner
v.
Donald J. Trump
Docketed: August 7, 2023
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Case Numbers: (23-12111)
Date Proceedings and Orders

Aug 02 2023 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due September 6, 2023)
PetitionAppendixProof of ServiceCertificate of Word Count

Aug 24 2023 Waiver of right of respondent Donald J. Trump to respond filed.
Main Document

Aug 30 2023 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.

Link to Petition: https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:s ... 47bc4d5684

[noblepa]

I think that he probably SHOULD be disqualified. I hope he is, but I'm not holding my breath.

Does anyone honestly think that even one state will bar him from the ballot and have the ban survive judicial review?

In the current political and judicial climate, IMHO, a snowball has a better chance of surviving in hell that such a ban has of surviving a hearing before the currently constituted SCOTUS. And it is absolutely certain that any attempt to ban him from a ballot, anywhere, is going to end up before SCOTUS.

It would however, be interesting to see a bunch of lawsuits filed, demanding that he be banned, and seeing his lawyers running around the country playing legal Whack-a-mole. And costing him a lot of money.

[Luke]

Jim Hoft and the Gateway House of Boys are ANGRY AS HELL about all this! Recently, Cassandra Fairbanks has been starting each J6 story with, "Stalin is smiling".

Far Left “Ethics” Group Sues to Keep Trump Off the Ballot in 2024 in Latest Junk Lawsuit
By Jim Hoft Sep. 6, 2023 6:20 pm
The Marxists want to ban the most popular political candidate in a century from running again for President.

The far-left group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is suing to keep President Trump off of the ballot in 2024. They insist this is a move to preserve democracy. Joseph Stalin would be impressed with their word games.

Democrats, RINOs and Mike Pence are very worried that Trump may be back in the White House soon and put a stop to their disastrous and deranged agenda. A federal judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit filed by a Florida lawyer who claimed Trump should be banned from the 2024 ballot for inciting an insurrection.

The legal theory is based on Section 3 of the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment which states public officials who have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the US may be disqualified from public office. Trump has not been charged with engaging in insurrection or rebellion against the United States.

CREW reported:

Having disqualified himself from public office by violating Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, Donald Trump must be removed from the ballot, according to a lawsuit filed today by six Republican and unaffiliated Colorado voters including former state, federal and local officials, represented by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the firms Tierney Lawrence Stiles LLC, KBN Law, LLC and Olson Grimsley Kawanabe Hinchcliff & Murray LLC.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, also known as the Disqualification Clause, bars any person from holding federal or state office who took an “oath…to support the Constitution of the United States” and then has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” On January 20, 2017, Donald Trump stood before the nation and took an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” After losing the 2020 presidential election, Donald Trump violated that oath by recruiting, inciting and encouraging a violent mob that attacked the Capitol on January 6, 2021 in a futile attempt to remain in office.

“If the very fabric of our democracy is to hold, we must ensure that the Constitution is enforced and the same people who attacked our democratic system not be put in charge of it,” CREW President Noah Bookbinder said. “We aren’t bringing this case to make a point, we’re bringing it because it is necessary to defend our republic both today and in the future. While it is unprecedented to bring this type of case against a former president, January 6th was an unprecedented attack that is exactly the kind of event the framers of the 14th Amendment wanted to build protections in case of. You don’t break the glass unless there’s an emergency.”

[RVInit]

Cuoy Griffin was removed from his position based on 14th amendment, but he was actually convicted of illegally entering the Capitol building on Jan 6th. It was upheld by the 9th circuit.

So, the only example we have so far is where the person was actually convicted of a crime related to Jan 6, but he was convicted of something far short of "insurrection". But then, attempts to keep Madison Cawthorn and Marjorie Taylor Greene off the ballot failed. They were not charged or convicted of anything. I have a feeling that there is no way any decision to keep Trump off the primary ballot will fail because he will not have been convicted of anything related to Jan 6. Depending on whether we have a conviction in his trial for trying to overturn the election may be the key to whether there is even a chance at all that he can be kept off the general election ballot. It will be interesting to see what happens, and lots of people may be in for serious disappointment.

We may very well find that all the well meaning checks the founders put into our various laws and documents only stand if people are willing to hold themselves accountable to them, but they have no legal teeth whatsoever. Trump doesn't hold himself accountable to anything, and it's clear that a shocking number of Republicans so far have decided that is a precedent they are willing to follow with wild abandon.

[AndyinPA]

We have relied on norms in this country. That may have worked while we had two serious political parties. It doesn't work with whatever the republicans have devolved into.

[Frater I*I]

We have relied on norms in this country. That may have worked while we had two serious political parties. It doesn't work with whatever the republicans have devolved into.

Fascists...and they didn't devolve into it...they just simply took the mask off they've been wearing for the last half century...

[MichaelJ]

We have relied on norms in this country. That may have worked while we had two serious political parties. It doesn't work with whatever the republicans have devolved into.

Fascists...and they didn't devolved into it...they just simply took the mask off they've been wearing for the last half century...

It's been quite clear since at least the "Southern Strategy"

[bob]

"For completeness," John Castro (a Republican candidate) has filed a number of disqualification cases. One, filed in S.D. Fla (n.b. Cannon, J.), was summarily dismissed due to lack of standing. Castro's R. 11 cert. petition already has been deadlisted to the long conference.

[chancery]

The very astute Josh Marshall & Talking Points Memo have been covering the Fourteenth Amendment issue closely.

Here's a good article about the fringe litigation that has taken place so far:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/a-bu ... ion-clause

Also see: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a- ... ment-thing
and:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/do ... ion-matter

Some quotes from the second link ("a-few-thoughts-on-the-14th-amendment-thing")

I’d like to go on the record suggesting people not get too wrapped up in this morsel of anti-Trump activism as a or the thing that’s going to drive the outcome of this election. We are covering it not rooting for it. At the end of the day, this election is going to come down to whether Democrats can sustain an anti-Trump coalition in the electoral college just like they did in 2020. There’s simply no administrative or courtroom shortcut around that necessity. My own view of this whole issue is one of what I would call benign disinterest.



There is an endless range of permutations that could get us there [Trump removed from the ballot of a swing state]. But all those roads lead eventually to the U.S. Supreme Court and it seems virtually certain that the Court would reject any effort to bar Trump from the ballot anywhere. We know this endlessly corrupt Court will find reasons to rule in the electoral interests of the GOP whenever there’s a colorable argument to do so.



I do feel a real sense of discomfort at any effort to take away from almost half the country the chance to vote for the candidate of their choice. But this simply isn’t some crazy novel idea. It’s literally right there in the plain text of the Constitution. And everything about how and why it got there testifies to its grave importance. It’s a mistake to let anyone or anything distract from the fact that this decision is one that no one but Donald Trump himself took when he plotted to overthrow the constitutional order. We need to keep the blame squarely where it rests.

I’ve heard a further argument that this whole gambit is basically a trap. It detracts from the critical effort to sustain an electoral coalition to beat Trump at the ballot box (where the whole thing will be decided) and muddies the question of who’s really for democratic rights and the free choice of the people. It gives Republicans a brand new grievance and gives the Court a free shot at a righteous judgment in Trump’s favor.

I appreciate this argument. But I can’t agree with what I take to be follows from it, which is that people who are committed to barring Trump’s return to the White House need to get these busybodies to stand down and not make anti-Trumpism look bad. Just as a general way of understanding the world I don’t think you win vast and consequential political fights by telling people who basically agree with you to calm down or not seem too excitable. Let a hundred anti-Trump flowers bloom. I don’t think the work of some public interest legal shop is going to drain critical resources or time that could have gone to firing up loosely identified voters to get to the polls and say no to third parties. And at the end of the day this really is in the Constitution. It’s no one’s fault but Trump’s that he’s the only candidate let alone former President to have led an insurrection against the U.S. government. This is just one of the obstacles he created for himself in trying to reclaim the office. It would be no less than bizarre if there were a provision in the constitution which on its face appears to render Trump ineligible to serve as president and no one even tried to enforce it through the courts and various administrative procedures of the states. And there is such a provision. So of course people are going to try. And as people focused on the Constitution and the danger Trump poses to the American Republic I can only wish them the best while also remaining totally focused on the simple fact that the real outcome will be determined at the ballot box.

You simply don’t win big fights by spending time trying to anticipate and manage how your opponents might react to particularly aggressive actions by people who agree with you. As I said, benign disinterest.

[realist]

Hope this is the right place to post this.

Just for info...

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary. Reconstruction Era federal prosecutors brought civil actions in court to oust officials linked to the Confederacy, and Congress in some cases took action to refuse to seat Members.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product ... B/LSB10569

[poplove]

Trump opponent seeks longshot 14th Amendment case to bar him from Nevada ballot

https://thenevadaindependent.com/articl ... ada-ballot

A Texas man filed suit in federal district court in Nevada this week seeking to bar former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 ballot using the 14th Amendment to the Constitution — a longshot legal bid that comes on the heels of a broader national effort to pressure secretaries of state to explore whether or not the amendment’s “insurrection” clause could keep Trump from winning office.

The Nevada lawsuit, meanwhile, was filed by John Anthony Castro, who is running as a write-in candidate for the GOP presidential nomination and who has filed similar lawsuits in other states, most recently including Maine and Utah. Castro, a vocal Trump critic who had made multiple unsuccessful runs for office in Texas, is representing himself in the lawsuit, though he is not registered with the state Bar associations of Nevada or Texas.

Candidate filing for presidential candidates runs in Nevada from Oct. 2-16. However, a push by the state GOP to run a separate caucus and eschew the primary altogether — a caucus some opponents say is meant to favor Trump — makes a Trump filing next month unlikely, and a resolution to the legal question of his eligibility unclear.

[bob]

Can we convince Tes to make a disqualification scorecard?

[DrConspiracy]

The pundits on MSNBC seem to think that Trump's 14th Amendment eligibility will be resolved by the U. S Supreme Court reviewing court decisions in lawsuits trying to keep Trump off or keep him on the ballot in individual states. Standing will be a big problem in some states (as it has already been in Florida) and from the reluctance of individual state secretaries of state to make eligibility decisions (like Bowen in California back in the Obama days).

But there is a cleaner way where the Supreme Court (under the Political Question Doctrine) is completely sidestepped. That's the 20th Amendment, which empowers Congress to reject a president elect that fails to qualify:

Section 3
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

[RTH10260]

"fails to qualify"

Does the 20th Amendment extend the reasons to not qualiy beyond that of the original Constitution, eg age and citizenship? Does it imply the evaluation of the 14th Amendment. When would Congress have to legislate, I assume both chambers would need to agree, but which president will be available to finalize it by signature?

[realist]

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction,and historically, one was not necessary. Reconstruction Era federal prosecutors brought civil actionsin court to oust officials linked to the Confederacy, and Congress in some casestook action to refuse to seat Members.Congress last usedSection 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1919to refuse to seat a socialist Congressmanaccused of having given aid and comfort to Germany during the First World War, irrespective of the Amnesty Act. The Congressman, Victor Berger, was eventually seated at a subsequent Congress after the Supreme Court threw outhis espionage conviction for judicial bias. Recently, various groupsand organizationshave challengedthe eligibility of certain candidates running for Congress,arguing that the candidates’ alleged involvement in the events surrounding the January 6, 2021,breach of the Capitol render them ineligible for office. No challenges have to date resulted in the disqualification of any congressional candidate.A New Mexicostate court, however, has removedOtero CountyCommissioner Couy Griffinfrom office and prohibited him from seeking or holding any future office based on his participation in, and preparation for,the January 6 interruption of the election certification

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product ... B/LSB10569

[noblepa]

The pundits on MSNBC seem to think that Trump's 14th Amendment eligibility will be resolved by the U. S Supreme Court reviewing court decisions in lawsuits trying to keep Trump off or keep him on the ballot in individual states. Standing will be a big problem in some states (as it has already been in Florida) and from the reluctance of individual state secretaries of state to make eligibility decisions (like Bowen in California back in the Obama days).

But there is a cleaner way where the Supreme Court (under the Political Question Doctrine) is completely sidestepped. That's the 20th Amendment, which empowers Congress to reject a president elect that fails to qualify:

Section 3
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Some asked if this would apply to the disqualification due to the 14th amendment, or just the original qualifications for President as set down in the original text. I am not a constitutional scholar or lawyer, but I would assume that it would apply. In discussing the amendment process, the constitution itself says that amendments become "for all intents and purposes" part of the constitution. So, IMHO, the 14th implicitly adds another qualification; that the candidate has never engaged in insurrection against the United States.

However, I don't think that this option would be cleaner. If anything, it would be even messier. I assume that Congress would have to act sometime between election day in 2024 and January 6, 2025, when Congress meets to count the electoral votes. That means that the Congress will have the same makeup it has now. I seriously doubt that enough R's could be convinced to reject Trump's win to make it happen. It would look even more like the D's were simply trying to overturn the will of the people (and God, for that matter, since TFG is divinely chosen to lead us), at least in the minds of the MAGA community. I think it would cause even more division than we are now experiencing, if that is possible.

No, I think that the cleanest way is for SCOTUS to rule that he is ineligible. And I believe that if any from lower or state courts will end up before the high court. While I seriously doubt that this SCOTUS would rule against Donny, at least, if they did, those wishing to keep him off the ballot could point to the fact that he appointed several of the Justices himself and they are a decidedly conservative lot.

There is another possibility. A few states might ban him from the ballot. SCOTUS could invoke the political question doctrine and simply deny cert. allowing those lower court rulings to stand. Personally, I think that this is the only possible way he will be denied ballot access, and I don't think that the chances are very good.

I really don't think that there is any real chance that he will be banned from any ballots. Not in this legal and political climate. Still, it is going to be entertaining to see him and his legal team spending time and money playing whack-a-mole with all the lawsuits around the country.

ETA: I just realized that I was mistaken. The new congress will take office on January 2, 2025. If the Ds were to retake the House and keep the Senate, they would have four days to reject him. However, I still feel that this would be political equivalent of a nuclear bomb.

[Foggy]

Him being re-elected would be a political nuclear bomb.

I just tell people that we're in uncharted waters. But pay attention, because things are gonna happen.

[bob]

I read "failed to qualify" to mean the most basic requirement, i.e., failed to receive a majority of electoral votes. Because the next sentence implies the uncertainty resolving the presidency could be (somehow) resolved, and isn't a permanent disability. To me, it sounds like a scenario where the presidency is thrown to the House, but the House doesn't resolve it before inauguration.

Regardless, if the quadfectee receives a majority of the electoral votes, and Congress certifies the count, and someone with standing (i.e., the losing Democratic nominee) then filed a 20th Amendment lawsuit, IMO, it would eventually (but quickly) be denied due to the political-question doctrine.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

I read "failed to qualify" to mean the most basic requirement, i.e., failed to receive a majority of electoral votes. Because the next sentence implies the uncertainty resolving the presidency could be (somehow) resolved, and isn't a permanent disability. To me, it sounds like a scenario where the presidency is thrown to the House, but the House doesn't resolve it before inauguration.

Regardless, if the quadfectee receives a majority of the electoral votes, and Congress certifies the count, and someone with standing (i.e., the losing Democratic nominee) then filed a 20th Amendment lawsuit, IMO, it would eventually (but quickly) be denied due to the political-question doctrine.

Additional non-permanent disabilities: President-elect turns 35 on January 28. President-elect hasn't lived in US for 14 years until March 3rd. The only permanent listed disability is natural-born citizenship. Even disqualification for insurrection can be removed by Congress.

[DrConspiracy]

I would just point out that Donald Trump claims to have been elected president in 2020. According to the 22nd Amendment, no one may be "elected" president more than twice.

Therefore, in order to run in 2024, he should be required to sign an affidavit declaring that he was not elected president in 2020.

[DrConspiracy]

The political question doctrine applies to the situation where the Constitution assigns a power to one branch of government (like impeachment). It has been a longstanding practice in the US that presidential eligibility is enforced (to the extent that it is) at the state level. It's never been the sole prerogative of Congress. Historically, Congress has never exerted the power, and in fact a member of Congress was seated that was too young (William Claiborne at age 21).

[raison de arizona]

Update on the legal effort to disqualify Trump from Colo. ballots under the 14th Amendment:
- Judge today set hearing for 10/30, aiming for ruling by Thanksgiving
- Said she understands parties want fast resolution so they can get to state supreme court + potentially SCOTUS

Previously on what's shaping up to be one of the first big tests of whether Trump's opponents can invoke the 14th Amendment's insurrection disqualification to keep him off 2024 ballots: https://bloomberg.com/news/articles/202 ... tol-attack
https://x.com/ZoeTillman/status/1703840890572177448

https://x.com/ZoeTillman/status/1703843936173732031