"As of this moment, under the professor's reading of Section 3 and of my reading and Professor Tribe's, the former president is disqualified from holding the office of the presidency in 2024," @judgeluttig tells @AliVelshi. https://t.co/Hai9kn5Zyn pic.twitter.com/SZEPfnJZA4
— MSNBC (@MSNBC) August 19, 2023
The only question is whether American citizens today can uphold that commitment.
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.
We were immensely gratified to see that a richly researched article soon to be published in an academic journal has recently come to the same conclusion that we had and is attracting well-deserved attention outside a small circle of scholars—including Jeffrey Sonnenfeld and Anjani Jain of the Yale School of Management, whose encouragement inspired us to write this piece. The evidence laid out by the legal scholars William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen in “The Sweep and Force of Section Three,” available as a preprint, is momentous. Sooner or later, it will influence, if not determine, the course of American constitutional history—and American history itself.
Written with precision and thoroughness, the article makes the compelling case that the relevance of Section 3 did not lapse with the passing of the generation of Confederate rebels, whose treasonous designs for the country inspired the provision; that the provision was not and could not have been repealed by the Amnesty Act of 1872 or by subsequent legislative enactments; and that Section 3 has not been relegated by any judicial precedent to a mere source of potential legislative authority, but continues to this day by its own force to automatically render ineligible for future public office all “former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion,” as Baude and Paulsen put it.
Among the profound conclusions that follow are that all officials who ever swore to support the Constitution—as every officer, state or federal, in every branch of government, must—and who thereafter either “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the Constitution or gave “aid and comfort to the enemies” of that Constitution (and not just of the United States as a sovereign nation) are automatically disqualified from holding future office and must therefore be barred from election to any office.
Regardless of partisan leaning or training in the law, all U.S. citizens should read and consider these two simple sentences from 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.
Read the whole thing. It’s long, but worth it.
Open thread.
Anonymous at Work
Good luck with that. TFG will claim that his support isn’t adjudicated.
The good news is that I believe that if Section 3 applies, TFG cannot receive electoral votes. That’s the federal counting mechanism, not appearing in state level ballots.
Josie
I’m guessing that, after reading the opinion, some secretary of state will definitely file something. It all depends on whether the Supremes are done with TIFG or not.
Jeffg166
TFG is barred from running by the constitution. That will rile his base. Sad.
Scout211
I read that this morning and while most of it was over my head, I definitely got the gist of it.
This morning on CNN.com there’s also an article up citing this article by Tribe and Luttig and legal opinions by others.
. . .
Scout211
I really don’t like that the final decision will likely be up to the current SCOTUS justices.
tmulcaire
We can agree that a plain reading of that text from the 14th Amendment disqualifies Trump from office. But, given the current default insurrectionary stance of the GOP, trying to realize this disqualification will almost certainly trigger a booby-trap. GOP state and local officials will surely move to disqualify Biden, or whoever the D candidate turns out to be. The integrity of the election will be shot to hell. Perhaps it will end up, as in 2000, in SCOTUS–not an attractive idea, to let SCOTUS pick the president, even if it didn’t have its rogue right-wing majority.
Maybe I’m missing something, but I see no way this turns out well.
MattF
The article notes that TFG has written:
IMO, you don’t need lengthy analysis— this, alone, is enough to disqualify him. And no, I’m no legal scholar, but if you were trying to construct a sentence that would disqualify someone from running for President, you couldn’t do much better.
John Revolta
There is, as I understand it, some controversy about this (of course). Mostly concerning the definition of “insurrection”. I suspect a number of Supreme Court justices may feel that you gotta say “Go now, and do an insurrection” for it to apply.
E.
I think there might be five votes on even this SCOTUS, though probably not six. Or nine.
trollhattan
The Federalists will have some thoughts about this nonsense, believe you me. Constitution schmonstitution.
Bubblebee
Does the Speech & Debate clause prevent members of Congress from being removed from office? There seem to be more than a few that gave aid and comfort to and even being outright participants in the J6 insurrection/failed coup.
RobertDSC-iPhone 8
Yeah, I don’t think this USSC would uphold it at all.
Penn
Doesn’t this also disqualify every Republican who has spoken in support of Trump after the insurrection, i.e. all of them?
twbrandt
@trollhattan: see Scout211’s comment at #4
trollhattan
Looks like Manchin has been gazing at Tuberville and became jealous of all the attention. Must fix!
Splitting Image
@Scout211:
What we have going for us is that if the Supremes support Trump in this matter and actually succeed in getting him re-elected, the entire constitution will be effectively shredded, including the institutional power of the Supreme Court. From the day of Trump’s re-election, no other figure in the government would have any power or authority other than what Trump’s loyalty to him would provide. That’s how dictatorships work.
Which means, to make a long story short, that the federal bribery train would go through Trump’s office and nobody else’s. No more invitations to fill an empty seat on a luxury flight or join a few friends for a weekend on a luxury yacht.
This is not the most significant consequence of Trump being re-elected, but it’s the one I would make a point of spelling out to Clarence Thomas.
Anthony
There has to be some way to adjudicate it, otherwise a GOP sec state of a battleground state could say “Pres Biden is disqualified because he’s given aid to China” or some other such nonsense, and there we go. In the 1860’s it was extremely clear who was disqualified, but they didn’t think ahead.
dmsilev
@trollhattan: I read that article yesterday. He’s really playing the scorpion, isn’t he; Biden and his team spent months kissing up to him, rewriting large chinks of the bill to suit him, and this is how he responds? Hope his boat springs a leak and sinks into the Potomac.
Brachiator
@Anonymous at Work:
Totally agree. Trump is not going to let a little technicality like the freaking Constitution hold him back.
strange visitor (from another planet)
yeah, no. this supreme court has ignored the black letter of the law several times. how long did they argue up and down about dingus con’s tax returns? says in the law that the chairperson of ways and means shall SHALL be given the returns of any american they require. IRS ignored that. derp furor ignored that and the supremes dallied long enough for the fascist gop to retake the house and render the request moot.
they. don’t. care. about. the. law.
also, watergirl, can we have a NYC meetup thread? i really would like to attend but 125th is awfully far from middle-brooklyn where i hail from and i wanna talk to notmax directly in a thread.
tomtofa
I’m missing something. How can he be disqualified for fomenting insurrection before he is found guilty of fomenting an insurrection/coup? I mean, we all know know he’s guilty, but under the law he’s still innocent, no?
artem1s
there is no conviction and until there is one this is all moot.
WaterGirl
@artem1s: Did you read the article? The constitution says nothing about this having to be adjudicated in a court of laws.
cain
@Jeffg166:
This of course means that they must do their patriotic duty and shred the constitution and make a more patriotic one! The constitution has betrayed the constitution and the founders!
SCOTUS will declare the constitution invalid and must have a new constitution.
zhena gogolia
@WaterGirl: But then I don’t see what keeps the Repugs from doing the same thing to Biden, by dreaming something up.
Scout211
So far, Trump has not been charged with causing or fomenting the insurrection. (Added: or even being a part of the insurrection) So unless Jack Smith adds charges, there won’t be any conviction on those charges.
FTFNYT August 3, 2023
janesays
@Jeffg166: Technically, he’s not barred from running – he’s barred from serving. One would assume that if someone is barred from serving in a particular position, they would necessarily also be ineligible to even seek that position, but we are dealing with a Supreme Court whose median vote is Brett Kavanaugh.
Brachiator
@Splitting Image:
The Supreme Court might become more powerful. Trump’s election would result in a Reign of Error. He would probably spend most of his time seeking petty revenge. But he couldn’t do much of anything without the support of the Republican leadership.
His more outrageous attempts to rule by executive order would be challenged in the courts, with more stuff ending up before the Supremes.
Right now, I don’t think that Trump has the brains or the discipline to get anything done as the first Autocratic President. But he would still be dangerous and cause a great deal of harm.
We need to do everything we can to oppose him and make sure that Biden is reelected.
bbleh
@Anonymous at Work: @Brachiator: yeah, the MAGAts will say it’s just an old piece of paper so who cares?
Remember the days when they piously waved around their little pocket copies of the Constitution? Ah, memories …
Almost Retired
All very interesting, especially to lawyers and political junkies. But I hope this is ultimately just an interesting concept, intellectually, but ultimately moot. Because he will have a bruising primary fight once the herd is thinned, and implode, or be jailed, or lose so badly that Goldwater would mock him. I can’t wait until the day when Trump no longer haunts my nightmares or floods my media zone.
Off to do stuff that one does to prepare for my very first sort-of hurricane. I feel as though I should fill up some sand bags for some reason, but so far I only bought wine. I am sure Florida is mocking us like we roll our eyes about the coverage of a 4.0 earthquake in other states.
artem1s
@WaterGirl:
May not be in that particular cherry picked clause but the Constitution absolutely has a fuck ton to say about convictions and not having your rights removed without one.
janesays
@Splitting Image: Let’s not kid ourselves – if Donald Trump somehow becomes president again, the country is over. Like, no more America. I mean, I suppose there might technically be a nation which refers to itself as the United States of America, but it’s not really going to be America except in name. Rest assured, a full blow civil war will break out within the first year of Trump’s permanent dictatorship – and yes, the only way he leaves the White House if he ever gets back in will be a in a box. Presidential term limits won’t exist anymore.
Thankfully, I don’t think it’s going to come to that.
japa21
@WaterGirl: Nobody would accept it without said adjudication. They are dreaming.
janesays
Assuming you are referring to the GOP primary, that’s a universe that doesn’t exist outside fantasyland. He owns the Republican Party – it is the party of MAGA. They’re never gonna abandon him. Ever.
Scout211
Yes, and as many commenters have pointed out, the House Republicans and Republicans who control several state houses could be motivated to disqualify pretty much every single elected Democratic official on made-up charges with fake whistle blowers and fake witnesses if Trump is disqualified prior to a conviction.
MagdaInBlack
@WaterGirl: Without a legal determination that he did indeed foment insurrection, how would you enforce this? Who decides?
Eta: yes, I know, silly me, still acting like laws matter, when we know that to the right, they do not.
janesays
@WaterGirl: You’re not wrong, but… how exactly would it even be enforced? Who would enforce it? And how?
Almost Retired
@janesays: I still think the base will be with him and he’ll get the nomination, but the primary may well peel off enough quasi-true believers that they’ll stay home and he’ll lose the general bigly. Hence the reference to Goldwater.
Ruckus
@artem1s:
It’s not a right to hold the office of president.
It is a privilege given to one citizen by a majority of voters.
And the 14th amendment states that a person who attempts to override the citizens cannot hold office.
I’m sure my language is not exact enough for the lawyers.
Jay
BC has declared a province wide State of Emergency.
cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/state-of-emergency-in-bc-due-to-wildfires-heres-what-it-means-1.…
The Thin Black Duke
@dmsilev: This is Manchin’s last cash grab. It’s looking more likely that he’s not going to be reelected, so the greedy son of a bitch is taking advantage of a rapidly-shrinking legislative window.
Omnes Omnibus
Okay. I agree in principle. How does it actually work?
Timill
@janesays: same as the 22nd Amendment: the SoS of the various States would disqualify him from the ballot, same as they would a foreigner or a person under 35.
I think an affirmation under the 22nd is the way to go: make all candidates state that they have not twice been elected to the office of President.
janesays
@Almost Retired: Oh, to be sure, I think he’s probably screwed in the general election by the look of things now, but I just don’t see him getting the nomination taken away from him against his will. He’s made it abundantly clear that he will never accept defeat, and the GOP establishment knows that if they try to kick him to the curb, they’ll be forfeiting the presidential election. They most likely cannot win with him as their nominee. They definitely cannot win if they don’t bend to his will and give him the nomination. He’ll burn the party to the ground. Personally, I’d love to see it. But I don’t think it will happen.
KrackenJack
@Almost Retired: Okay, that made me laugh.
Scout211
@Jay: Thanks for your updates. The fires are so devastating and so scary.
From your link: Yikes.
nonrev
These are the rights gray beards. I wouldn’t doubt they speak for the wealthy. Who know but these are big legal guns on the right saying Trump can’t run. Remarkable IMO. But who knows they may get pushed out
J R in WV
Any ” Supreme ” who supports Trump would also be 14th out of office instantly, in my humble opinion.
Alison Rose
@Omnes Omnibus: If the idea is that states should not put his name on ballots, if he is indeed deemed ineligible, then it seems it should be the same as anyone running who was not eligible. My nephew is 28, and he could declare himself a candidate, but he wouldn’t be able to officially file to run nor be placed on any ballots.
The problem is all the right-wing yahoos in states that wouldn’t give a shit if Trump made a campaign stop at an animal shelter where he murdered every cat and dog on site with his bare hands on live TV. So yeah…I’m not sure how we get him not placed on ballots?
janesays
The delicious irony of this entire mess is that Mitch McConnell had the opportunity to make this problem go away 2.5 years ago, and he chose not to take advantage of it. All he had to do was wrangle 17 of his members to vote for Trump’s conviction in the impeachment trial, and they would never have to worry about the mess that having him as the party’s 2024 presidential nominee would create.
Brilliant strategery, Sen. McTortoise.
janesays
@J R in WV: And who would remove them?
Scout211
@J R in WV: hey J R, how are you doing?
J R in WV
@janesays: U S Marshalls
MagdaInBlack
@Jay: We visited the Okanagan Valley and stayed at Vernon, BC when I was a kid, 1967, I think. What I remember most is all the irrigated orchards, how dry it was otherwise and how much my father hated it ( there were too many people) We decamped to Pillar Lake up in the mountains where he could fish in peace.
To say seeing all this is heartbreaking doesn’t even touch what these people are living thru.
janesays
@Timill: Good luck getting any Republican SoS to go along with that. And if too many Democratic SoS took that route in purple states like PA, WI, MI, etc, you better believe lawsuits would be filed to stop them, some wingnut Trump federal judge would issue an immediate injunction, and the whole debacle would work its way up to SCOTUS.
To be clear, there’s no reason they shouldn’t try that strategy – I’m just not convinced it would ultimately work without SCOTUS getting involved.
Frankensteinbeck
@janesays:
The GOP establishment has little or no say in the matter. If they did, Jeb Bush would have won the 2016 primary. It’s all about who the primary voters want, and so far those voters have been offered Trump, Ron ‘that wimp’ DeSantis, and they’ve heard some other people might be running but they couldn’t name one. There is no sign that dynamic will change, either. The weakness of the GOP field is gobsmacking.
JaneE
Aside from Trump, how many of the GOP Representatives and Senators acted in furtherance of the conspiracy to overturn the elections? Everyone who voted to dispute the electors of both states was giving aid to the conspirators, IMO. Did they know why they were supposed to vote against accepting them? Did the people who filed the motions know? Do they even need to be cognizant of the intent or do their actions count on their own?
And is it worth the legal battles to get rid of them in toto?
JMG
@The Thin Black Duke: There is no percentage in Biden doing the slightest thing to appease Manchin. It’s not Biden’s style to tell Manchin publicly to buzz off, but Manchin’s national constituency is not very scary IMO.
smith
So Manchin is going to run for president in revenge for… (checks notes) the Democrats caving to his every whim? What I want to know is, who on earth does he think his constituency would be? Never-Trump Republicans? Are there enough of them to make a difference? Never-Biden leftists (snort!)? Suburban soccer moms? How fervently has he defended abortion rights? I think he’s left with the oil oligarchs and the coal-rollers as his only natural constituency, and they will vote for TFG.
Almost Retired
@janesays: This! If the Republican party apparatus had turned on him and stuck with it, they may have had to recover from a few metaphorical stab wounds, but would be in a better place in 2024. They followed the worst possible strategy…. Denounce him (sort of ) and then take it back. It was a complete failure of understanding of the psychology of sheep.
J R in WV
@Scout211: Doing OK, see the Robitics Surgeon on Monday. Had big chemo yesterday, maybe last one depending on Monday’s Dr appointment.
Saw my family doctor after the chemo, he was over the moon with happiness after top management of the whole hospital group gave him a plaque celebrating his 50th anniversary in practice — glad I happened to be there for that!
He’s been a rock in supporting me since my diagnosis last December! Said call him any time 24/7!
Omnes Omnibus
@Alison Rose: Even in blue states, does the SoS or other responsible official just decide that what Trump did was insurrection and decline to put him on the ballot? I can’t see that ever being misused. There needs to be a process. Like, perhaps, a conviction in a court of law.
janesays
@J R in WV: Ideally, sure… but I have a hard time believing it would be that simple. Pretty sure we’d see a lot more insurrection – including within the ranks of federal law enforcement – if things went this way.
janesays
@Almost Retired: Yeah, the base would have been absolutely enraged for a little while, but four years is an eternity, and they would have gotten over it by 2024.
RSA
Corruption in SCOTUS aside, I’m thinking that TFG’s nominees may have no loyalty to him at all, now that he’s out of office. (Totally apropos, right?) If eligibility comes before the court, they could just take the opportunity. It’s not as though having a Democratic President cramps their style.
janesays
@JaneE: There’s absolutely no possible scenario in which this would work (getting rid of 100+ Republican members of congress who voted to object to certification on January 6th), and in all likelihood would lead to a literal civil war and the dissolution of the country.
zeecube
@tmulcaire: I want to agree too, but my plain reading sees disqualification from Congress or Senate. It does not specifically reference disqualification from Presidency or Vice Presidency, only disqualifying the electors of. Granted, “no person shall hold … any (civil) office under the United States” is broad enough to include presidency or vice-presidency, but specifically enumerating Conress and Senate and not the office of Presidency or Vice Presidency leave an ambiguity to give SCOTUS an out.
ETA: I mean I like Tribe and Luttig’s argument, but statutes penal in nature must be read strictly. Ambiguity may be an issue.
Yarrow
For this to work some Republicans have to have some balls and stand up to the crazy. So it’s not going to happen.
emmasophia
There is no percentage in Biden doing the slightest thing to appease Manchin. It’s not Biden’s style to tell Manchin publicly to buzz off, but Manchin’s national constituency is not very scary IMO
Scout211
@J R in WV: Some positive news. 👏
It makes such a difference when you feel good about your doctor, doesn’t it? He sounds wonderful.
I hope you keep improving and feel better.
Ohio Mom
I appreciate the legal skill and research that went into developing this. I think it’s important and useful to have a variety of models of ways Trump can be kept from resuming the presidency.
It needs to become conventional wisdom that Of “course he can’t serve again,” and every argument to that helps to build that convention wisdom is to be welcomed.
But this doesn’t move my personal needle. The best I can manage is cautious optimism that at least one of the court cases now in motion is decided against Trump and for our country’s future as a functioning democracy.
eclare
@janesays:
He absolutely did. Bad move on his part, I guess like Susan Collins he thought TFG had learned his lesson.
Calouste
I think it’s balderdash. There were quite a few Confederates who got elected to Congress and other positions after the Civil War. For example, Alexander Stephens, Congressman from Georgia 1843-1859 and 1873-1882, as well as Governor for a short while, and in between the one and only Vice-President of the CSA.
JPL
A friend just sent me a Politico article that states Fox and the Murdochs want a Youngkin/Kemp ticket.
Link
A friend told me the other day that she was hearing discusions about Kemp being VP, so not surprising.
BTW I just watched Bombshell about Roger Ailes, and it was fantastic.
JPL
@J R in WV: That is such good news, and I hope Monday you receive only positive news. We need your voice.
Baud
@JPL:
Not sure why Kemp would take a back seat to Youngkin.
Ruckus
@Omnes Omnibus:
As this is a new thing in our history and there is only a constitutional amendment that covers it, not any court case, I can’t see any state government making that decision. It is a fucking mess is about as good a comment I can think of. But I believe that the 14th is pretty clear that he’s not eligible to run. He and his supporters are not going to listen, but look at the attendance at his last few rallies, his support is about as thick as the dirt on the Whitehouse kitchen floor. Sure if he does run, and states put him on the ballot, I’d bet the lawsuits would pile up higher than the mop on his head. And none of this will ever be described as pretty. It’s a shit show, as he’s been for his entire adult life.
eclare
@J R in WV:
Fingers crossed for a good appt on Monday!
Brachiator
@Ruckus:
The issue of qualification to hold office is not decided by voters.
This discussion is interesting, but for now, theoretical, I think.
Jay
@Scout211:
Smoke has flooded into the Lower Mainland from the Hope fires today. The haze is bad and the air has that dirty wood smoke smell.
The AQI here is at 5, Moderate Risk.
eclare
@Baud:
Same. Plus if he has any sense, which Kemp seems to, he’ll serve his term as governor then run for pres in 2028.
Sure Lurkalot
8 years since the menace paid people to watch him descend an escalator, we find it’s not that easy to rid our nation of this pestilence.
It seems inevitable that he will be the nominee and if so, it is most certainly inevitable that he will pull out the same playbook if he loses. Who knows where and what the violence will be but our laws’ inability to deal with the lawlessness of the wealthy and well-connected is one of the root causes of where we sit today.
JPL
@Baud: Kemp’s folksiness might not allow him to run on the top of the ticket yet. In order to win, they need GA and his conservative views on abortion, did not hurt him at all.
Villago Delenda Est
George Washington University “Law Professor” Jonathan Turdley seems to think that Tribe and Luttig are propagating an “urban myth” here.
The Kropenhagen Interpretation
Needs moar trial. It can self-execute once he’s proven guilty.
Roger Moore
@Bubblebee:
The Speech and Debate clause should cover only a legislator’s actions in an official proceeding. That seems like the plain reading of “for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place”. The only thing that is protected is A) Speech or Debate and B) in either House. Talking to anyone outside the Capitol, even giving a speech there, shouldn’t be covered*. Giving someone a tour of the Capitol and pointing out whose office is where and what the escape routes are wouldn’t be covered.
*It probably would be covered if for some reason a Congressional committee convened in another location and the speech were given in that official proceeding.
JPL
@eclare: According to the article, Youngkin might not even be able to qualify in VA. Steve Bannon is vocal about his hate of Kemp, and so is Marjorie. I am fine with that because it will hurt Kemp if he runs against Ossoff.
WaterGirl
Apropos of nothing. we are about to have high temps and a heat index of 110, starting tomorrow, so I am running sprinklers today so everything at least enters the heat wave happy.
I just want out to check the sprinkler in the back because sometimes they go rogue and suddenly are no longer spraying the area they were set for – and instead are watering the screened-in porch, for instance.
Man, is there ever a grumpy bunny sitting and pouting because I have apparently wet all of his favorite spots. I wish I had a photo. He is PISSED.
Jay
@MagdaInBlack:
Vernon isn’t a “holiday town”, it’s a service center now, back then it would have also been a resource town. A bunch of the orchards are gone with Wineries taking their place.
Penticton and Kelowna are the “holiday towns” because they are right on the lakes.
Pilllar Lake is still there and fishes okay, but there are much better lakes in the hills. It’s funny, the valley bakes, but you go up into the hills and it’s 5 to 10 degree’s cooler.
Timill
@janesays: soon as the ballot deadline passes, there will be lawsuits filed, probably in all 50 states. Whether the lawsuits are to request or protest his exclusion doesn’t really matter…
Roger Moore
@WaterGirl:
The constitution doesn’t say it, but common sense does. Somebody has to decide whether Trump was engaged in insurrection or rebellion. If the person who decides that isn’t in a court, there will be a lawsuit and a court will eventually have to decide it. The 14th Amendment doesn’t spell this out because joining the Confederacy was so overt that the decision was obvious, and a court would dispose of the arguments so quickly nobody was worried about it. With Trump’s seditious conspiracy, the actions aren’t all so overt, so determining the exact status of someone who didn’t actually invade the Capitol will take some adjudication.
Jay
@J R in WV:
It’s great to hear that your treatment is going well.
#FuckCancer.
eclare
@JPL:
Always good to hear from locals! Thanks!
mrmoshpotato
Nitter link
‘It all disappeared with Brexit’: Craft beer boom ends as more than 100 UK firms go bust’
Guardian link
Oops!
The Kropenhagen Interpretation
I think they’re trying to goad any potential theoretical overzealous D-Secretary of State to get over their skis and pull the trigger* before there’s a proper, indisputable finding of fact, like a conviction.
Imagine the precedent that would be set. Candidates who had held office before just being disqualified all willy-nilly based on some spurious argument that some prior action applies.
Don’t trust the authoritarian Federalist Society.
*I like my metaphors mixed.
🐾BillinGlendaleCA
OT: Proof of life.
I was on vacay the last 5 days and spent the time in either dark places or processing shots.
MagdaInBlack
@Jay: That was the year we camped across Canada. My father had wanted to see the Okanagan Valley, and found it not to his taste. His taste was more northern Saskatchewan, Lac La Ronge being my favorite. We rough camped at Lake Nemeiben, which area burned a few years ago too.
eclare
@WaterGirl:
That’s funny!
Baud
@🐾BillinGlendaleCA:
Good dark places or bad dark places.
Brachiator
@J R in WV:
Wishing you the best.
Good to know that things are going well.
dmsilev
@🐾BillinGlendaleCA: Welcome back, just in time for the storm.
zhena gogolia
@🐾BillinGlendaleCA: Sounds fun!
Alison Rose
@Omnes Omnibus: Yeah, while I agree with the essay up top, it seems too difficult to put it into any action when Trump’s party basically thinks he’s their new Jesus.
Jay
@MagdaInBlack:
Being a BC boy since 15, I am fond of the BC hills and mountains, not a huge fan of the flat ground. I have fished hundreds of BC lakes, rivers and streams, plus the Salish Sea and the West Coast of the Islands.
🐾BillinGlendaleCA
@Baud: Good dark places.
@dmsilev: And back to The Depot.
@zhena gogolia: Initially frustrating, but ending up fun.
Jay
@The Kropenhagen Interpretation:
*I like my metaphors shaken, not stirred.
Dorothy A. Winsor
@J R in WV: Glad you’re doing well. We all have our fingers crossed.
Abnormal Hiker
@Jay: Is that AQHI, which is unique to Canada? If it is AQI it’s pretty clean air.
Omnes Omnibus
@Alison Rose: Another problem is that if a decision about being an insurrectionist is made by anything but a court, one runs up against the Constitutional ban on bills of attainder.
JPL
@🐾BillinGlendaleCA: How much rain are you expecting? I imagine that the HD will be busy.
MagdaInBlack
@Jay: Illinois born and bred and I’m not fond of the flatlands either, to be honest. I did love the BC mountains. I was 9, it was all amazing 😊
Jay
@Abnormal Hiker:
AQHI, but it is Vancouver, where we are a couple hundred KM away from the nearest fires. It’s uncommon that wildfire smoke is stronger than just a high haze in the Lower Rainland.
Glidwrith
@WaterGirl: The Constitution may not explicitly state that adjudication is required, but (not a Con-scholar), how much of it does say adjudication is a requirement?
Who actually would have the authority to tell the Shitgibbon “no” and enforce it, if not a court of law?
If not a court, then either executive or legislative authority must be used, either at state or Federal level.
Jay
@MagdaInBlack:
Calgary to Edmonton is a fun drive. One slight curve, cows and oil pumps on both sides of the road once you leave the outer ‘burbs, no real hills.
The joke when you head east, past Calgary, is the first person to spot the lights of Toronto on the horizon, get’s to choose the next fast food stop. If you make it as far as Sask. with no winners, everybody in the car needs their eyes checked.
Omnes Omnibus
@Jay: Don’t you all just chose Tim Horton’s anyway?
MagdaInBlack
@Jay: Going east, miles and miles and miles of wheat fields ( then ) punctuated by grain elevators. Also fields of what they then called rapeseed, now canola (?) We’ve done that drive. Also up to Grande Prairie and Peace River. Parents had a friend in Gr Prairie that was RCMP, transferred there from Regina.
I feel like the angel of death, so many of these places I’ve been have had fires.
Baud
@MagdaInBlack:
You can ignore the email inviting you to my house party.
geg6
@J R in WV:
Been thinking of you and am so happy to see things seem to be going well. May they continue on that course. ❤️
MagdaInBlack
@Baud: Probably for the best 🤗
Omnes Omnibus
@Omnes Omnibus: Choose, not chose. FFS
wjca
@Baud:
Matbe they played rock-paper-sissors for the top spot and Youngkin won…?
Jay
@Omnes Omnibus:
Not me. Hope for example. You can bypass the town proper, get onto a strip with old motels, gas stations and fast food chains, (one grocery store),
Or you can exit to the downtown, pull over near the park, and get amazing pies, cakes, muffins, cinnamon buns and great coffee at Ruby’s, a small coffee shop and bakery.
Most small towns have that one or two “ethnic” restaurant. Greek, Italian, Chinese that have been there since the 50’s. In Grand Forks, it’s perogies and borsch. Just before the hill climb outside of Osoyoos is a burger stand with great burgers, fish and chips, amazing onion rings and locally grown banana’s.
Timmies uses corn syrup to sweeten the coffee, which is Prairie Wash anyways.
Miki
@Ruckus: There is nothing “only” about the Amendments to the Constitution.* See, e.g., not in order of anything, the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment, the 4th Amendment, the 5th Amendment, the 6th Amendment, the 8th Amendment, the 13th Amendment, the rest of the 14th Amendment, the 19th Amendment, etc. The Amendments are the home of our most important individual liberties vis a vis the State. The Articles of the Constitution are about the powers of government.
* IANAL but I was one.
wjca
One plus to the Federalist Society saying TIFG is not eligible: the 3 political hacks masquerading as Justices owe their positions to it. Which might sway them, should the issue of eligibility come before the Court.
smith
Especially as Kemp has a lot more experience in government than Youngkin does. Although that could be a disqualifier for some in the GQP. His experience, plus his refusal to fix the election results in GA, I guess would make him a tool of the Deep State.
Tony Jay
@J R in WV:
Good to hear things are moving in the right direction. It’s double thumbs up from this side of the Pond.
Jay
nitter.net/RVAwonk/status/1692869899108913506#m
Jay
nitter.net/tomcoates/status/1692922211416334597#m
CaseyL
I’d be careful using the 14th Amendment to keep Trump off the ballot, because the definition of “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” is a very broad brush.
Every new Federal employee, including the President, is required by law to take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Ditto every person in the armed forces.
Under a broad reading of the 14th Amendment, anyone in uniform who protested against a war the US was fighting would be ineligible. John Kerry would have been ineligible to run in 2004. (In fact, I think that point was raised at the time by some RWers.)
Roger Moore
@Baud:
It’s basically the reason your daydream involves your girlfriend the famous actress convincing her friend the supermodel to be your mistress rather than vice versa. It’s all a fantasy, so the way it happens is completely up to the person imagining it.
UncleEbeneezer
@JPL: Last I heard was an estimate of 7-10 inches in Los Angeles.
Miki
@WaterGirl: But it, necessarily, will be adjudicated. If a State Sec of State doesn’t put TFG on the ballot, TFG will sue. (See, e.g., Page v Carlson) If TFG is put on the ballot, someone else with standing will sue. And then the Court will interpret the 14th Amendment pursuant to the powers it created for itself in Marbury v Madison
That’s the way it works. To the extent the disqualification is “self-executing,” some entity with constitutional power still needs to put it into practice which then gives rise to judicial review.
Mike in Pasadena
It wouldn’t take many secretaries of state among the fifty states barring trump’s name from the ballot to prevent the electoral college from installing him in the office.
We can dream, can’t we?
JPL
@UncleEbeneezer: That’s not good
Jeffro
Exactly right.
We wouldn’t even need ‘this’ to ‘work’ if the GOP (elected officials and voters both) could be bothered to have some standards, or consider themselves Americans first and Republicans second.
The whole country is going through this (and HAS been going through it, for going on eight years now) just because no one on their side seems to be able to stand for anything.
Burnspbesq
@tomtofa:
Easy peasy. You sue in state court, seeking a permanent injunction against the Secretary of State and local election officials putting his name on the ballot or counting write-in votes. You put in some of the already-publicly-available evidence. All it takes to get a preliminary injunction is a showing of “probable success on the merits.” And if you can find some state constitutional or statutory hook on which to hang your case, then the adequate and independent state ground rule kicks in and there’s no Federal appellate jurisdiction.
Don P.
@janesays: It’s possible MM didn’t have the ability to convince 17 of his members to risk getting primaried.
mvr
@J R in WV:
Thanks for the update; was wondering. I’m glad that things are at least OK.
Jeffro
It sounds good.
I can still see trumpov taking unfavorable legislation to SCOTUS, or an unfavorable SCOTUS ruling to the GOP House. And then back again if necessary.
As long as there is literally one MAGA supporter, somewhere (Mike Lindell, paging to the white courtesy phone) trumpov will continue to insist he has a right to run, to unlimited ‘free speech’, to protest a ‘rigged election’, etc etc etc.
Just throw him in jail at the next opportunity, judges. Do the world a favor.
Burnspbesq
@Calouste:
You’re forgetting your history. Congress passed an amnesty.
mvr
@Omnes Omnibus:
This may be redundant as I haven’t finished the thread.
It looks like officials other than judges can decide he is ineligible based on the 14th and applicable statutes. So if a state law says only constitutionally eligible candidates can be on ballots, then a secretary of state can follow that law and keep him off the ballot. And similarly for other officials with various defined duties. Probably when that happens someone would sue and it would wind up in court. (Remember that you can sue for just about anything in this country and the remedy for a bad reason to sue is losing/getting thrown out of court early in the process. But that can be appealed.) And likely eventually it could/would wind up in the Supreme Court. But it would not need to go to court before an official could use the 14th as a legit reason to act.
smith
I think there are a fair number of people in this country who are struggling to accept the idea that a former president can be tried and imprisoned. Asking them to also take on this disqualification idea, even if it’s been in the Constitution all along, will be too much. It’s too radical rearrangement of how they understand our political system to work.
On the other hand, if there is convincing evidence that a member of Congress aided and abetted the rioters, then it might be worthwhile to try it there.
Trivia Man
Just got back from Calgary and a trip to Glacier, Waterton, lake Louise and cetera. One day was slightly hazy. Word is the mountains are now invisible on that drive.
side note – walked on a glacier – guides said it was warmer than almost any day they could recall.
Almost Retired
@Trivia Man: we’re doing this same trip in late September and very early October. Hope the fire issue has resolved by then.
Another Scott
@mvr:
Kinda-sorta relatedly… Reuters.com (from September 2022):
Yeah, he was convicted. Wikipedia says the NM supreme court denied his appeals, so he’s still out of office.
I’m recalling that one of the possible results of conviction in an impeachment is being barred from holding future office. Conviction in the Senate isn’t a usual legal process run by the courts – it’s a political process run by the legislature. So, I’m not sure that TIFG would absolutely have to be convicted before the 14th can be invoked, but it would certainly remove ambiguity.
Here’s hoping that he’s convicted of multiple charges in multiple trials, he continues to bleed support, and the prospect of him holding office again is only a bad dream.
Cheers,
Scott.
Anonymous At Work
@bbleh, et alia: My comment isn’t that Section 3 shouldn’t have some action. My comment is that TFG has a legitimate point that Section 3 would require some adjudication of “insurrection.” Having TFG tried for insurrection, or aiding/abetting an insurrection, giving TFG a chance to defend himself, and then have a pre-determined finder of fact (aka a jury or judge) render judgement is what prevents this from being abusive.
Matt Gaetz could otherwise declare that both Biden and Harris fomented “insurrection” by failing to kill all illegal immigrants upon entering the US.
So, I’d love for there to be some finding that tied TFG to the Proud Boys’ conviction for insurrection, and then have Section 3 kick in automatically. But that middle step is huge.
Jay
@Almost Retired:
It probably won’t be resolved until the snows hit. December, January.
With the ocean heat bubble pushed up against the coast, we probably won’t get the fall rains, so the salmon runs will probably die off again before Hope.
Sure Lurkalot
@Almost Retired: We vacationed in Canmore (tourist town about an hour west of Calgary) for a week last year and we’re feeling fortunate that it wasn’t this year. Hope things are improved for your trip. We hiked every day in Canmore, Banff and Lake Louise areas and it was lovely. You probably know a visit to Lake Louise requires a reservation? We did not nor were we prepared for the throngs of humanity. Happy travels!
Not feeling so fortunate this year as I have to travel to Texas soon for my niece’s wedding.
Omnes Omnibus
@Anonymous At Work: We agree on this. Also, for those scoring at home, self-executing provisions of the Constitution are those that do not require additional legislation to be legally effective. Someone somewhere, however, must make the call that Trump or anyone else is an insurrectionist. FWIW I think that call should be made by a jury. Anything else would be Constitutionally infirm.
Trivia Man
@Almost Retired: if you can, go to Waterton and Lake Moraine.
🐾BillinGlendaleCA
@JPL: About 3″, HD is very busy and we’ve had 2 call-outs in my dept. Hellish describes it well.
Ruckus
@JPL:
Not in one day, not so much.
BTW does you handle have anything to do with a location north of Pasadena?
Kent
The post 1-6 impeachment trial was not the time to be done with Trump. By then it was already sort of too late. They could actually have avoided all of that on say November 6 by simply publicly congratulating Biden and announcing that Trump had lost. That would have completely taken all of the wind out of Trump’s election fraud lies. If the whole Senate and other Republican notables had congratulated Biden and wen on all the news shows talking about how it is time for the Republican Party to move on from the Trump era it would all have quickly been over.
But no one other than perhaps Romney had the courage to do even that. Fuck all of them.
Kent
@Burnspbesq: Nice try. But that didn’t stop SCOTUS from intervening in state court decisions in Bush v. Gore.
TooTallTom
@mvr:
Who would have standing to file such a lawsuit?