January 6th 2021 the Constitution and the Rule of Law
I would like everyone here to contemplate and consider the following within the context of everything you know about the events of January 6, 2021.
And, after having done so, share your thoughts re the possible and potential consequences and outcomes for those involved:
The Constitution of the United States of America
Amendment 14, 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.”
What’s your thinking on this?
01/29/2022 @ 11:40 am
If I am not mistaken, that is the amendment that was intended to prevent former Confederates from seeking and holding public office. I have a number of thoughts on that as a general practice/amendment. First of all, I think it is a good idea. Such individuals should not be eligible to hold public office. Beyond that, the notion that the legislature can reverse that, and other amendments from that period granting citizenship to Americans who lacked it previously concerns me. A buildup of certain types of individuals in Congress can lead to the elimination of rights which should not be able to be taken away. This buildup can occur like so much congestion in an unhealthy heart. The buildup can accelerate.
01/29/2022 @ 12:23 pm
“But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
This applies specifically and exclusively to the 3rd section of the 14th Amendment.
The only way the concept of this provision could be expanded would be through the process of amending the Constitution, not legislative fiat…
The Supreme Court would have to twist itself beyond recognition to make this provision applicable to any other provision(s) of the Constitution.
“If I am not mistaken, that is the amendment that was intended to prevent former Confederates from seeking and holding public office.”
The beauty of this provision is that it does not limit its application to the sons and daughters of the Confederacy.
On its face, this provision precludes anyone found guilty of any aspect, at any level, of what took place on Jan 6 from holding a public office of any kind anywhere in the country.
01/29/2022 @ 1:12 pm
Right. I meant it was created at the time for former Confederates, but more broadly applies to insurrectionists.
01/29/2022 @ 2:08 pm
The constitutional and statutory rules of impeachment provide as follows:
“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”
The Senate blew the chance to preclude Trump from ever holding office.
Under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, a guilty verdict predicated on the events of January 6th would do the trick…
That’s one reason why it is absolutely necessary and appropriate to refer to what took place as an insurrection and not just a riot.
01/29/2022 @ 4:00 pm
Of course it was an insurrection, but there are going to be a lot of people trying to define it as a protest. The question is whether those people can collect enough votes. The Republican Party has been very hesitant to take Trump on. My guess is that he’ll have to be taken down in criminal court based on an offense other than January 6.
01/29/2022 @ 5:06 pm
Kosh, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is quite specific and will be narrowly construed.
“The question is whether those people can collect enough votes.”
No it is not.
The question will be whether the Supreme Court must be persuaded to determine that the planning and execution of what took place on Jan 6th meets the criteria and satisfies the legal or constitutional definition of an insurrection.
No other offense requires constitutional preclusion from public office…
01/30/2022 @ 12:46 am
I hope you’re right and I hope the Court isn’t too far gone.
01/30/2022 @ 8:26 am
To his chagrin, Trump appointed judges have been ruling against him rather consistently re the ridiculous and ludicrous cases and arguments brought to the courts on Trump’s behalf.
Kosh, as long as doing the right thing is not construed as a hypocritical turning on Trump, rulings against Trump will continue to be the Trump appointee’s proof positive that he or she isn’t simply a political hack sitting on the bench determined to do Trump’s bidding.