Erm, a law is self-executing if no qualifications or conditions that determine an underlying requirement are established within the law. That is to say, the section three of the 14th Amendment, having no requirements of conviction of a crime, and mere assertion that if an officer of the government, having taken a sworn oath to uphold the Constitution, engages in insurrection or aiding the enemies of the country, then they're automatically disqualified. It's a Prima Facia disqualification, requiring no other intervention to determine disqualification. Just like any other US Amendment. You have a right to free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press. There are no qualifiers to determine time, place, necessitating court intervention to assert the applicability of the first amendment. Hereto is the case for the 14th Amendment.
The Office of the President is not disqualified. Quite often to understand the intent of a law the courts turn to the papers, writings, and arguments made in the passing of a law or amendment. That is why the Federalist Papers are often referenced in constitutional law questions. The discussion between the two senators who passed the 14th Amendment asserts the Presidency is not excluded and not intended to be excluded. Furthermore, the Presidency, for the purposes of other laws, is defined as an office, and the President an officer. For example, 18 USC 241, 242, and 245. In the vernacular of the time when the 14th Amendment was passed into law, an officer of the government was any official sworn to an oath to uphold the US Constitution. Ergo, the President is as much an officer of the government as a police officer is, or a USPS delivery person is. The express language of the 14th Amendment is clear, regardless of the current debates.
@@mnemosynevermont5524 That's a furtherance of the 14th Amendment, and it applies to anybody and everybody, regardless of stance or office. If Trump were indicted under it this would be an absolute disqualification. This doesn't impact the prima facia nature of the 14th Amendment's section 3 disqualification.
If we could step back a moment and look at this "is the President an officer" debate from the perspective of the 14's authors, I think we could all agree that the people who wrote the 14th amendment probably included the President in their "don't let traitors hold these positions" list
@@jdotozokay but isn't the president also considered the commander-in-chief of the military? shouldn't that count for him being considered an officer? (genuinely confused here lol)
I don't think the people drafting the fourteenth amendment were overly worried about this. I don't think they foresaw the election of someone who would try to overthrow the Constitution. My knowledge of members of the Confederacy is limited. Did Jefferson Davis ever take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States? If not, why would they limit it to people who previously swore an oath to the Constitution? Would they have wanted him running for president? My guess is that they didn't expect the people as a whole to elect an insurrectionist to office. They were more concerned about the people of the Confederate states putting insurrectionists in office at any level. They didn't spell it out clearly because they never saw a situation where a president would try to overthrow the Constitution through insurrection and people would allow that person access to the presidency again. But if you take that perspective, you need to remove every member of the House and Senate who did not vote to impeach/convict Trump over the insurrection because they have engaged in giving aid and comfort to the president who engaged in insurrection.
Founders did not expect POTUS and SC justices to be potentially corrupt and therefore did not see a need to fully flesh out the mechanism for their discipline or removal.
Even if Trump himself isn't found guilty of inciting insurrection, by promising to pardon people convicted of insurrection he is giving aid and comfort to Americas enemies.
I firmly believe he cannot be held liable for causing an insurrection. He didn't engage in anything directly enough to qualify. So I think the whole point is moot
These Democrats are ignoring the Due Process part of the 14th Amendment. Until Trump is convicted, this is all nonsense. Secretary of States don't get the discretion to decide who can and can't run based on their opinions. Otherwise, Republicans can decided to pull Biden from ballots based on Red States elected officials' "interpretations" of treason.
14th amendment authors: Make it clear, make it clear! 14th amendment: very long and detailed and all-inclusive People today: uhhh what is an "officer"?
@@BlizzardofOze "AKSHUALLY, 'is' implies that the officer is currently holding a office. Which Trump does, because the election was rigged and he actually won, but right now it is more convenient for me to say he didn't, so I say he is not currently an officer and therefore the 14th ammendment doesn't apply!"
Personally I wager that the reason nobody specifically included the president and vice president in the 14th is because nobody at the time thought that a president would ever attempt to overthrow the democracy that the country was literally founded on.
@@thodan467 At that point in history it was literally impossible for the commoner to give informed votes. That's why this country is *not a Democracy.* At all. And that's because the people who made this country *believed we were too stupid for our own good.* And they were right. But we're at a point where unlike the Second Amendment... literally nobody could not have foreseen this event. So I think it was more of a "We'd never let the idiot peasants actually get what they voted for."
nobody would ever attempt to overthrow their own office, Trump was president until Jan 20. not Ford, not Reagan and not Biden, who was he trying to overthrow?
Technically he's the Commander in Chief of the entire military (which includes Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, and Space Force, and any other branches that may be created) not just the Army. I'm not 100% sure he can be an officer of every branch at once, especially if he's not directly in the military in any one specific branch.
And he's a civil officer too. It's literally called the _office_ of the presidency. I guess according to the Qult's interpretation of the constitution, if you're both a civil and military officer then those two things cancel each other out or something.
@@ClonedGamer001 being "Commander-in-Chief" is a civilian title. Trump has never served in the military, nor does he hold any formal military rank, only a civilian title while he was President. But, being Supreme Commander of our Military does seem to give him a title as an Officer of the US Government, as that title is appointed to the elected President (my interpretation)
That position is a civilian position held by President, not an officer in the Military. He is not holding an appointed office, nor in the military. An officer of the state refers to an elected position, or military.
@@bobjames2312 A "Commander in Chief" (or "Supreme Commander") is someone who has complete command and control over an armed force. It isn't a part of the regular rank structure for any of the branches, but it 100% is a military title.
The idea the the President of the United States is not an officer of the United States is so patently absurd its offensive to even have to discuss it with a straight face
I keep having people tell me voting isn't a right... because it isn't enumerated. As if A) the 9A doesn't exist, or B) that the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments don't call voting a right. I get that the (non-legalese) Law of First Impressions (the primacy effect in psychology) is hard to break, but it's kind of necessary to learn how to break it in order to be a fully functioning adult.
There's no way the drafters DIDN'T consider the President and Vice President to be included officers by definition considering they just impeached Andrew Johnson 4 months before they ratified the 14th amendment.
It should be obvious that anyone who has attempted to overthrow the government or committed treason should not be able to hold any government position. How ridiculous that this comes down to legal semantics.
@@user-account-not-found Yeah, when one party is displaying genuine, legitimate cult behaviour and protecting their guy at all costs theres not much the sane among us can do. The GOP is realistically beyond repair at this point. They should just start over with a whole new party
Except that he wasn’t convicted of anything like that. Before you can legally treat him as an insurrectionist you need to convict him of leading an insurrection. Honestly I kinda want this to go through because I think it would be hilarious if after this the republicans start a hearing for whether Biden is an insurrectionist, lose, then get to ban him from office anyway.
The solution is to write (or rewrite) the appropriate penalties and laws to bulletproof against semantics. I'm a believer of using plain text documentation accompanying the laws and written by the lawmakers themselves to give context and reason to the laws. So we wouldn't have to ask a court to interpret Congress's intent; it would be spelled out. It would also cut out some legal people's creative license when lawyering.
When it comes to anything legal, it always comes down to legal semantics. That's literally how having a legal system works. What would be worse is if things were just illegal because they "should be obvious".
This is the kind of thing that drives lay people insane. My reading of this amendment is "If you were involved in trying to spark an insurrection, you're not allowed to say how the country is run." It feels _very_ cut and dry, and people are trying to weasel around it because of the wording. I very much doubt the Union even conceived that such a person would even come close to the position of president.
Well, it's especially bad when they're quoting cases that have nothing to do with the President to justify how he's not an Officer. While specifically ignoring a SCOTUS decision in Nixon v Fitzgerald that specifically deals with the President and ruled that he is an officer, specifically the "Chief Constitutional Officer."
it's simple if the american people think he is guilty they don't vote him in. leave it to the people. i just hope they don't vote sleepy joe anyone but him. but i am sure that it was left for the congress to decide. which they voted. now it's up to the people because congress left the door open for it. people want to be mad be mad at congress. it is up to them to disbar. by 2/3 vote to eliminate such a threat and then the people. that is my take on the legalness. if so many people think he should not be in office then they will vote accordingly.
If you asked the writers of the 14th amendment, "should someone who, while president of the United States, who insighted an insurrection against the Federal government, should they be eligible to run for president again?" I think it's pretty obvious that they'd say: "Sorry... WHAT???"
Great point. Now, very serious question, if you had seen video of Joe Biden using the Whitehouse tours to find children to fondle, way back in 2012 when he was vice president, would you have changed your view of his eligibility for President in 2020?
Using Chief Justice Roberts' own words, "The people do not vote for officers of the United States", when in fact the people do not vote for the President due to our Electoral College system. The people vote for electors and the electors vote for the president.
Damn, that's a very good point. The president is *appointed* by the electors (who are themselves *appointed* by the respective state governments). So really, as a side question: what are the people voting for again?
I mean if you look at the current state of the electrical college in the next couple of years the republicans are going to be voting themselves permanently out of federal office.
@@rendymonyab Is that not just semantics? They say vote.... You say someone selects.... These words are interchangeable, so technically these words mean the same thing. It is certainly is something lawyers would squabble about. That includes pretty much the whole system depending perhaps which side of the aisle you're on.
The intent of the 14th Amd. Was that no man, having betrayed an oath he swore, should be allowed to reswear that same oath. We can quibble about wording or nitpick enforcement, but it really boils down to "did Trump betray his oath?" and legally "should he be allowed to swear it again?"
For me you shouldn't even need to hold any position in the government for it to be a good idea to preclude you from running again if you were part of an insurrection. It's just common sense, a person with a criminal record wouldn't be hired as a LEO ffs...
You would think bud unless the wording covers every situation and circumstance pocible then their will always be a question witch I think is ridiculous in some ways.
and since 99.9% of the people in attendance on Jan 6th were surprised when they learned what some hooligans did on the other side of the building and then everyone was bummed that they had to go home early and the whole day was ruined... I think it's pretty obvious that it was not what Trump intended
So when they wrote the bill, they all agreed that the president wasn't excluded... Seems like a no-brainer. Also, can we address how crazy it is that the defense to "As an officer of the country, you committed insurrection" is "Is he an officer?" It's like if the Human resources person robs a bank and we all sat around saying "Is the HR person a manager or a supervisor?" THAT'S NOT THE IMPORTANT PART! I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
It's not that crazy, it's pretty mundane. The first question that anyone ought to ask when enforcing a law is, "Does this law apply here?" The crazy part is that it's not clear.
@@griffin123122 To a layman, perhaps. And I agree that it would have made sense to include the person in whom the entire executive authority is vested. But they certainly didn't do it explicitly, and there is a decent case to be made based on how the term is used elsewhere in the Constitution that the President and Vice President are in a different category.
@@jdotoz I don't care if they "didn't do it explicitly." The President was explicitly included under "holding any office" during the drafting of the amendment, there's no reason for it to suddenly not be an office when it comes to determining who an "officer" is. Edit: also before you come in with "oh but elsewhere it refers to Officers _and_ the President" that's officer with a capital O, indicating it's a specific title. This is officer with a lowercase o, indicating it's anyone who holds an office.
Think of it this way: if Trump wins the election, then the people have voted for insurrection. That's always been his platform, and the Republican platform, anyway.
The 14th covers all elected offices at all state and federal levels. You cannot get elected to any public office once you do what trump and other republicans did.
TBF the main difference is that some are "elected" while others are "appointed." The latter can be said that it's under the constraint of 14 amendment. At least that's my understanding from this video. So in this case, if a senator is elected, he can still be qualified.
It's debatable whether the people who wrote the amendment intended for it to apply to anything other than Confederates. (That doesn't stop it from being applicable to other insurrections though, especially as written.)
@@jliller True, although they could have specified that. Because it is so general it is obvious they wrote it knowing it could possibly be used in the future.
A lot of rules are made because people had to break them beforehand. You'd think "No peeing in the pool" is common sense, but some jokers keep doing it, so it's gotta be on paper.
@@NecroNathanconYeah, I still havent gotten over the fact, that the producers of microwave ovens had to add a "do not dry ur pet in the microwave" to the users manual, coz an idiot "dried" their poor poodle in it with the obvious tragic outcome, and the producer was actually held liable for not sufficiently anticipating the depth of human stupidity.
It's like... It's like watching an Olympic race and seeing somebody comfortably win, but then the guy who came second demands that all of his supporters (who take up less than half the stadium but get all the best seats) go and storm the winners' podium and take back the race by force. But then, when all of those supporters actually go and attack the real winner, despite video evidence of the race, the referees have to very slowly decide whether that runner was actually a runner and whether he actually encouraged the supporters to go and attack the winner. Then all of the sports media complain about the real winner stealing the race, and half the people in the Olympic committee support the guy who clearly lost and fight tooth and nail against every attempt to punish the loser for inciting the attack on the winner, and all of the supporters in the stadium claim that all of the video footage was faked by the winner's home country, and...
I'm sure the people who wrote these amendments wanted us to take something that was written at such a length and complexity so as not to be misinterpreted, and then argue over the semantics of that document instead of acknowledging the obvious and clear intent of the document 😑
That's the law for you, in order to rule on something the law that you're arguing over has to be ritin thousands of pages long to cover every situation and circumstance pocible.
As someone who had to salute him as the COMMANDING OFFICER-IN-CHIEF every morning during their military stint, I would not have been able to contain my laughter after hearing that defense.
@@ernestgary6812considering that almost everyone he hand picks to hire ends up turning on him, he seems like a real standup guy. But since that doesn’t fit with the myth, go ahead and believe that a guy who lives in several country clubs is actually an Everyman would love to have beer with the downtrodden.
I'm baffled by the idea that the people who put the 14th amendment together did so with the understanding that it would be fine if insurrectionists became president of the country they tried to destroy. Should be very straightforward for our originalist friends at The Federalist Society.
@@timl9724 I don't really grant that the BLM protests were an insurrection but, heck, if that got Trump off the ballot I'd be happy to say whoever led BLM shouldn't be allowed to run for president.
@@timl9724BLM we’re never insurrectionists, they were rioters and even then it was only after police backlash. However, blm leaders not being able to run for office is fine if trump also isn’t, that’s at least fair. It’s funny that instead of defending your parties actions, you make false equivalences that only make you look worse
@@cantthinkofaname5046 Democrat party leaders specifically called for violence and confrontation on numerous occasions, often specifically referencing the violence of the Founders (revolution) as a reason for law enforcement to stand down. They were very specific as to what they were after. They advocated for the events that were happening to directly alter the governance of the nation. They stood behind a terrorist organization known to support the terroristic tenets of Marxism. And they supported this violence for the better part of a year. They even promoted annexations and de facto annexations (no go zones) on U.S. soil. The violence and intimidation alone directly affected the outcome of one of the most anticipated elections in U.S. history. They knew that it would work that way. And they said it out loud. It was the most calamitous period domestically in U.S. history, outside of the Civil War. Trump, of course, was weak for his failure to meet this challenge head on, hiding in his bunker as he did, but that just makes him a coward, unwilling to deal with the traitors and insurrectionists on his watch.
I remain conservatively optimistic. The courts tend to do the right thing on large matters like this. Recently there's been some SCOTUS stuff that's not been great but I can't imagine they want to deal with every sitting president marching on the capitol to overturn an election as long as they remember to wink at the end of their speech. He won't be found guilty on all counts in all cases but he's not coming away clean.
@@bac1308 I don't believe for one second that this Supreme Court, which took away women's right to bodily independence remember, would do anything to prevent a domestic terrorist from taking office as long as that terrorist agreed with them.
@@bac1308 "The courts tend to do the right thing on large matters like this" I don't see this. The supreme court has opened the political donation system in a way, that already broke democracy and made it a system, that is very near to an oligarchy, because the billionaires rule with their billions -- beginning with the fact, who will come on the ballots and ending with the funding of the campaign. But yes, the supreme court is far away from being corrupted. We saw that already.
Also... if the president wants to argue he is not an "executive officer of the United States", I'm not sure how he could justify being the "supreme executive"
At this point, it feels like we’re operating on Air Bud logic. There’s nothing in the rule book that says a dog can’t play basketball, just like there’s nothing in the rule book that says a criminal who tried to overthrow the government can’t be president. In both cases, there’s a reason why it’s not in the rule book - because the people who wrote the rule book never imagined that this scenario could be possible.
It's in the book that only natural born citizens can be president - not for racist/xenophobic reasons, but because we don't want to risk candidates with divided loyalties or possible foreign agents getting planted into the highest office. The intent is quite clear that anyone who is not loyal to the US shouldn't be able to run, but nooooo we have to ignore the law's intent and pick apart semantics instead
The oath the president takes states:”support and defend the Constitution against ALL enemies,foreign and domestic. That includes if You yourself are the enemy. Although it’s not a law, he is still guilty of violating his oath of office. That should mean something!
Well fact is Trump did. There was no insurrection, it was a riot and Trump didn't support nor defend the rioters. He didn't even tell them to riot. He never once told them to storm the capitol. In his speech he told them to go to the front lawn, to chant and cheer and protest peacefully. The people had every legal right to go to the front lawn a protest peacefully. The ones that stormed the capitol and rioted broke the law and they did so on their own accord. Trump had nothing to do with it. Now you want some who has been violating that oath look at child sniffing racist dictator Joe Biden.
By your own admission, he did nothing wrong and followed his oath if he genuinely believed that there were enemies trying to underscore an election through fraud. that would constitute defending the constitution from domestic enemies.
Even offering aid or comfort to insurectionist is enough to qualify. Calling them good people and offering to cover legal fees would be enough let alone everything else he did to set the stage and everything that has come after
what's the point of the 14th amendment anyway if it can't disqualify a clear threat like trump. we would be electing someone who explicitly announced he would suspend the constitution itself.
Presidents aren't officers of the military. Despite being the commander, the military recognizes the presidency as a civilian position, not a military one.
@@vinsanity40kThe people the 14th Amendment was specifically written about were all pardoned after Lincoln died. There arguably hasn't been a point since then.
How about if we dont turn the USA into a banana Republic and let people vote? Socialist in Venezuela just made the opposition female nominee ineligible for 15 years. Did the same thing to the guy before.
Fact is it wasn't a insurrection it was a riot and another fact is Trump didn't tell anyone to riot. He didn't promote any of it. In his speech which all these medias refuse to show, he said to go to the front lawn, chant and cheer. Protest peacefully. The people there had every legal right to go to the front lawn and protest. The ones who went into the capital did so on their own accord not by the word of Trump. Trump is not responsible for what happened that day.
Do some LEGAL research for a change. Congress does not MAKE and courts do not ENFORCE laws based on what they "sound like." The President, as "Commander-in-chief" is a civilian. C-in-C is NOT a military title and the President is subject to NO PROVISION of military law.
The Commander-In-Chief seems like it's definitely "an officer of the United States" so if the President also simultaneously holds that title then shouldn't Trump be ineligible?
Nobody was convicted of insurrection so it wasn't an insurrection. Seditious conspiracy simply means PLANNING to commit sedition/insurrection. Not the same thing. More importantly, at no point in time did Trump incite a riot.
This activist “lawyer” doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Congress took advantage of the last sentence of section 3 in the late 1800s “The right to remove disabilities imposed by this Section was exercised by Congress at different times on behalf of enumerated individuals.1 In 1872, the disabilities were removed, by a blanket act, from all persons except Senators and Representatives of the Thirty-sixth and Thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States.2 Twenty-six years later, Congress enacted that the disability imposed by section 3 . . . incurred heretofore, is hereby removed.3”
The president takes an oath as a president under article 2. Not as an officer under article 4 The courts should not make vibes based judicial decisions but be informed by past precedence and constitutional reasoning
Unfortunately "seems like" is not a particularly strong legal argument. Not to mention the question of whether the article would include the military just in general or if "officer of the US" only narrowly encompasses governmental positions. The military also using the term "officer" does not necessarily imply that connection.
The notion that the writers of the 14th amendment would have been OK with Jefferson Davis getting elected POTUS after the civil war is beyond ridicule. The intent is clear.
That's not the argument being made. All offices are barred under the Amendment very clearly. The Amendment, however, only applies if you've sworn an oath of office for Congress or for being an officer of the United States. The Amendment does not list the Presidency as an office that meets the criterion to have disqualification applied to you, thus committing disqualifying acts as President/VP (or having only been President/VP) is only actually disqualifying if the term "Officers of the United States" covers the Presidency/VP. Jefferson Davis was previously a Senator and Secretary of War, thus clearly is covered as a person subject to disqualification, whereas Trump was only President, which is not necessarily an "Officer", though it would be an absurd exception if intentionally drafted as such and an equally absurd oversight for the SCOTUS to uphold if unintentionally drafted as such.
Jefferson Davis (or any confederate, really) would still be eligible for the presidency. The disqualification clause says "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..." Read it closely. Even if you ARE subject to the disqualification clause like Jefferson Davis, it still does NOT say you can't be president. I think whoever drafted the document should have taken a creative writing course with our sponsor for today's comment, SkillShare.
@@guacre2675 *"Even if you ARE subject to the disqualification clause like Jefferson Davis, it still does NOT say you can't be president."* I would disagree with that. In what you cited, it says: *"...or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State..."* Whether or not the President is an Officer of the United States is a distinct question from whether or not the Presidency constitutes an office of the United States. I don't think that there is any question that the office of President falls within the scope of "any office, civil or military, under the United States" and therefore within the scope of offices you would be barred from.
What's wild is that by the wording of this clause suggests that a seditionist may hold office so long as they swore no oath prior to their attempted sedition.
It not only suggests that, it SAYS that. Unless you were a member of the military (which you could argue that only even applies to officers because officers are commissioned where as enlisted are not, so even if you took an oath to defend the constitution it did not make you an officer) you could have directed a nearly successful beer hall putsch style coup and be elected president later. It's wild how close to fascism we've been this whole time and it's only taken a good hard flirt with it for people to realize it.
It also means that those who DID engage in insurrection or rebellion cannot be kept from office if they had previously sworn no such oath (which of course would be the casde for 99% of the population).
BTW, section 3 arguably does NOT cover sedition--if by sedition you mean INCITING rebellion. You have to actually ENGAGE in that rebellion to be covered. That is, unfortunately, another possible loophole Trump might use.
What is important to note about all this: If the one side wasn't trying to defend their lord and savior, then they would have never argued that the president shouldn't be disqualified. No sane person believes that if there are bad actors, that they exclude the MOST IMPORTANT office when barring them. That's insane... It's only now we have this defense shown BECAUSE they are protecting a person, not an ideal. Weaseling their way through words is what politicians do best, but it's still sad to see...
There is an argument to be made for positions where the people of the country vote and decide who is going to hold that position. If the law and the courts can be used by the government itself, to barr individuals from its positions, then it means that the state holds the power to deny its people from electing. It doesn't really matter what a candiate has done, if the majority of citizens wants to elect that candidate, isn't that the entire premise of the US? That its citizens holds the power to elect their representatives?
@@justinthecode I love the way its seen as the courts taking away the rights for people to vote for who they want. Why don't people all vote for a 25 year old, non-native? could it be because there are certain clauses that automatically disqualify a person from running for president? If a person led, incited, supported an insurrection or gave aid and comfort to those who engaged in the insurrection, it is not the courts that have disqualified the potential candidate, but the candidates own actions.
@@4Q_Anyermama This is a great point. The difference I see is that the disqualifications based on age and nationality are 1) in the original constitution and 2) not based on whether the person has dissented to the government. The effort to get Trump off the ballot is purely a ploy to disenfranchise 80-90 million Americans based on the candidate's dissent to the ruling party.
Be careful what you wish for. If you start banning people from running for office, it will be used against people of your party, too. If you want to prevent someone from holding an elected office, VOTE FOR THE PERSON THEY'RE RUNNING AGAINST. End of story.
If he is not an officer, then he shouldnt be one! Just prohibit him from ever joining in any office and he will be not guilty and everyone else will be safe from him.
This is why textual analysis of the constitution is stupid. Our founding fathers were not literalists and didn't intend for us to argue the law based on a grammar choice. The meaning of the 14th amendment is clear
Certified Trump hater here. I don't think he should be officially "disqualified" until he's actually CONVICTED of a felony, as this would set a dangerous precedent. Having said that, him running for office should NOT "pause" any criminal prosecution proceedings (or civil litigations for that matter); in fact, such trials should move him to the "head of the line" of "due process" in order to de-conflict from his eligibility to be on the ballot or from actually serving if he wins. And even IF he wins, if a conviction (especially for attempting to overthrow the government) is handed down post-election, "executive privilege" should not protect him from removal from office.
Insane that a convicted felon isn’t eligible to vote but can run for the highest position of our government. Edit: I'm referring to convicted felons who are *currently* serving time.
@@sueyourself5413 Technically the point remains, since it's a bit hypocritical to disallow one but not the other. It should either be neither is allowed or both allowed. EDIT: According to another poster you can vote in the US after the sentence is finished (it's when someone is on parole they cannot vote, according to said poster). Don't know if that's true, but if it is then what I wrote here was based on incorrect information and can be disregarded.
@sueyourself5413 when he is convicted. When. 91 felony charges. Do you think they are mistaken in charging him? You do know he will be convicted because he is guilty. He is a TRAITOR to the United States of America.
I remember during the Birther nonsense during the Obama era realizing to myself that the qualifications for running for president are laid out in the constitution but the framers did not set up any mechanism or enforcement body to enforce the standards The Constitution says a candidate has to be at least 35 years old but if a 30 year old runs who is charged with preventing it? You heard a state Secretary of State say it’s not his job, so who’s job is it??
He's only half right. The state departments print the ballots for their states, so if they decide someone shouldn't be on them, they just don't put them on the ballot. That person can take them to court, where a judge will hear the arguments from both parties and make the final decision. That's why Trump called the GA secretary of state when he (allegedly) wanted the election rigged in his favor. State departments control a great deal of voting.
I imagine they simply assumed that people wouldn't be stupid enough to require a court to say "not sure if I'm allowed to step in here" to decide these problems. They probably figured that someone filing the paperwork would just be told "no" when their minority was discovered. That system has worked pretty well.
It is called “ The Office of the President.” Senators, Congressmen, Presidents, mayors and governors all are said to hold office. So how can anyone say that they are not officers of the government? That term, officer, is in the language to mean elected Officials. See how that works?
I hate that the thing that could easily protect our democracy is potentially being stopped because the judicial system can't decide what a few words mean.
@@a-a-ron772 preventing fascists from running will only help our democracy in the long term. The mistake Germany did before the rise of the Nazis was being too lenient on them when they tried to do a coup.
@@a-a-ron772 A lot of people are already disqualified from running. Only those who are citizens by birth are qualified, and for a reason. That being, we can't afford to have a president with possible divided loyalties. We can't afford to have a president who might commit treason. It's the same principle here, so unless you think we should get rid of that clause about birthplace, you can't seriously think an insurrectionist can be president either.
@@rustygray5058 Oh? I thought they hated them because they cost insane amounts of money to defend basic rights that should be universal. Or is it because they're the ones writings the laws and contracts that their services are required to decode?
That is minor league quackery, major league quacks like "America's Mayor" Rudy G take it to a whole nother level by saying verbatim " the truth is not the truth".
I feel like we really took for granted the 2-ish years that Trump was completely absent from the news...guess you don't know what you've got 'til its gone 😑
I don't recall two YEARS more like two months? Or so. Just the couple months after he did an actually illegal thing that apparently if he just didn't talk publicly for a couple months the rest of the Republicans could then say "insurrec- what? Huh? 2021? Jan? Huh? I don't understand. Anyway, vote for Trump!"
@@alexrogers777 It's not just that it's a conservative court - it's that he put THREE of those conservative morons on the court (one a drunk party frat boy, another from an absolute religious cult) - they should absolutely recuse themselves from any case given that DIRECT connection. But laws and reality matter little to these people, doing anything and everything to gain/hold on to power so they can continue to normalize the hateful, bigoted agenda of the right. Person above party. Party above country. Power above ALL ELSE.
The Supreme Court *should* know better than to get involved. That's a *major* separation of powers violation. They'd leave it in the legislative's hands. ...Hopefully
@@XXMatt0040XX The current Supreme Court seems to overreach massively when it comes to their own personal opinions. They couldn't wait to overthrow Roe V Wade despite multiple previous Supreme Court justices upholding it for example. Their particular brand of religion trumps precedence and rulings from people arguably more moral and educated than the current political appointees.
@@armorclasshero2103mainly the king part. The founders initially had President be a more moderate power, but ever since Andrew Jackson the office of President has become much more powerful, and thus much more risky.
It would be really backwards for the POTUS not to count as an officer, because that would mean that the law excludes the actor with the most power and the most autonomous use of it.
I find it concerning that people would attempt to say that the specific mention of the President and Vice-President somehow doesn't mean they are included in this exemption simply because of the use of the word "officer" when taking the oath. I think the intent of the amendment is clear that it should include anyone who holds that position. Otherwise, they would not have been specifically mentioned, and would have likely had their own separate clause. The spirit of the amendment is to prevent insurrectionists from holding any office of power in government.
This is where the law gets to be so frustrating, at least for those of us who do not practice it. The intent of the 14th amendment was made clear at its inception: people who previously had sworn loyalty to the US who then went on to participate in insurrection et al should not be allowed to hold office again. AND THAT IS EMINENTLY PRACTICAL. Of COURSE you wouldn't want someone who tried to overthrow the government to be given a place IN IT. I know that the law is a game of language, I get that, but . . . dammit! Practicality. Common sense. And this ban should be applied with GREATER stringency the more power the office in question wields! NOT LESS! The FIRST office that an insurrectionist should be barred from holding is that of PRESIDENT! DUH!!!!!! Trump's mob has been consigned to the courts, but those in the highest positions are STILL awaiting the legal fallout from their actions in planning and directing the insurrection. And while we wait, men who are in positions to do great damage are not only escaping justice for crimes they have already committed, but they are left free to seek advancement which will give them greater power to repeat their crimes to greater effect. In simple terms, no one who hates this country so much that they would overthrow it should be allowed to RUN it. A CHILD could tell us that. Alas, it seems, the law cannot.
I think this is going to depend on what the state secretaries of state and one or two federal courts decide. Loyalist Republicans will argue that "oh this is a Civil War thing, it's clearly obsolete", while a fair number of everyone else will likely argue that telling a bunch of people to march to Congress and "fight like hell" is well in line with inciting an insurrection and the 14th should apply. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if/when this goes to SCOTUS, the conservatives will probably interpret the 14th narrowly, saying that we shouldn't bar people from running for "political" reasons, we should allow anyone who is eligible to run, blah blah blah, ignore all the times we ruled for the wealthy and powerful and against everyone else, oh no our legitimacy is in the toilet again, I wonder why. This case illustrates yet again why so much about our democracy and the Constitution is "protected" by the honor system. If someone doesn't care about the appearance of doing the right thing, they can easily rip apart a lot of important stuff, and that's exactly what Donald did in his tenure, _and this is the man the Republican Party is trying to protect._ If this doesn't tell everyone that the GOP must not be allowed to govern, nothing will.
What gets me is that I'm positive the GoP could find a candidate that could act like trump politically while not wiping their butt with the laws. It can't possibly be that hard to find someone who will tell China to shove it and generally lean away from wars and focus more on mainland US security and economy. That sounds like the points they liked about him politically. I don't know why they also require the side show that comes along with Trump. Well... I mean at this point it's just my team good, hahaha you're so mad I love it. Not sure there is anything else really behind his support.
Great point! Additionally, I might be completely wrong but I feel like the "it's an old obsolete law" argument might shoot them in the foot, because a legitimate argument can then be made about any old laws, like the 1st & 2nd amendment. If the 14th amendment is an outdated product of its time then the same could be said of the 2nd amendment when muskets were still a thing!
@@bac1308 They could certainly find a candidate like this. The problem is they created a scenario where Trump basically runs the party. They have to let Trump in the primary and go with him if he wins. I'm interested what would happen if he loses the primary and still runs. The GOP might just be screwed and have to back him anyway. Probably the best thing that could happen for the GOP is if Trump is ruled ineligible for the presidency. Whether they see that or not.
I'd argue the Civil War is still going one, albeit as a Kelvin-level cold war, considering the goons with the Confederate battle flags running around the halls of the Capitol Building on Jan. 6h 2021.
Apparently, while the Supreme Court feels he couldn't hold office, but that it wouldn't stop him from running for that office.. which seems insane to me. If you can't hold the office you are running for, you can't run for it because you aren't a true candidate. This isn't about Trump, it's about anyone in that position. If you can't actually ever accept the position without breaking the law, then you shouldn't nominate yourself for that job.
The big problem is that the same people responsible for holding Trump accountable to anything are the same people who are determined to get him elected. And these people have proved time and time again that hypocrisy is not an obstacle to their goals.
you mean like how the left ignores the crimes the bidens have done? republicans were calling him out before trump won in 2016. Hunter's laptop wasnt a "right wing conspiracy" just like Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton kept saying all that stuff was made up against her husband. Anifa isnt a myth, that was another one. the same people that are hell bent on taking down trump defend a president you sniffs kids and admitted to quid pro quo on TV. but those stories dont have as much energy as "orange man bad"
If you were shown footage of Joe Biden making molesting contact with a child in the US Capitol, would you change your view of his eligibility for the office of president?
Also doesn't help that that people trying to prosecute Trump are the same people serving the current administration, that wants to stay in power and keep the other guy off the ballot.
Wait, so we literally have record of a conversation between two of the original authors of the clause wherein they discuss whether the President and Vice President are covered under the language of “officer”, and they agree that they are, and there is still somehow debate about what was intended? WTF?
No, The plain meaning rule should suffice (assuming US courts have such a rule). I mention that because Congress is a collegial body. The author of a clause is not the ,member of Congress who drafted it (if only because many clauses have multiple authors thanks to amendments; and section 3 is a case in point: it had more than one author) but Congress as a whole.
I'd say that voters need more accountability. Many voters across the country would still vote for him even though they know he is a criminal and an insurrectionist.
@kingace6186 oh I mean that the presidency needs to be held to a higher standard. None of this "can't be convicted while a sitting president nonsense".
Regarding the whole issue of standing - wasn't the Federal Court system explicitly used to enforce the 14th Amendment during the post-Civil War era? If they possessed standing then, why wouldn't they now?
For that matter, if nobody has the authority to investigate a candidate's qualifications, how exactly would an unqualified candidate be disqualified? Can a blatantly unqualified candidate who was, like, born in Cyprus or something just run for President of the United States and argue nobody has standing to challenge their qualifications even though everyone knows they aren't qualified? Why would there be a law if no one can enforce it?
@Brasswatchman: "wasn't the Federal Court system explicitly used to enforce the 14th Amendment during the post-Civil War era" Yes and no. Legal Eagle is only telling part of the story in this video. In particular he makes it seem as if the first usage of section 3 was in the First Enforcement Act. In reality, section 3 was first used in sections 5 & 6 of the First Reconstruction Act of 1867 before the 14th amendment had even been ratified. By so doing Congress was (in essence) passing both a Bill of Attainder AND an Ex Post Facto law (which in turn was arguably unconstitutional as per section 9 of article 1 of the Constitution). Those Reconstruction Act provisions in turn were enforced not by any court of law but by the US Army using powers granted to them by that (and the other) Reconstruction Acts. It wasn't until that 1870 Act was passed that Congress finally started using the courts to handle section 3. That Reconstruction Act usage, however, is why the 1872 Amnesty Act exists. For it turns out that those Reconstruction Acts had swept up more than Confederacy synpathisers. They had also swept up Union supporters as well. Thousands upon thousands of them. Before the 1872 Act was passed Congress was having to periodically pass amnesty Act after amnesty Act to get them off the hook, listing each person by name. Eventually, Congress seems to have gotten tired of that so it passed the 1872 Act, which is called the General Amnesty Act for that reason: it forgave pretty much everybody. (And even after that 1872 Act Congress found it had to keep passing a few more every so often.)
I don't understand how the most simple answer is never said... If it's invoked once, it's going to invoked over and over, it's political mutually assured destruction.
Theres a big issue here. The 14th amendment specially points out senators as "officers" and last time i checked.. Senators are actually voted in so the claim that a president is not "an officer" because of the fact that hes voted is contradicting the amendment.
The 14th amendment doesn't point out senators as officers, it specifically lists senators because they are not officers. If senators were officers there would be no need to list them separately.
@@a-a-ron772does it say that explicitly? That senators are not officers because they are elected? You assume they are listed because they would not be otherwise included, but the law is allowed to have redundant definitions so long as they do not contradict themselves. Plus there is the record of this exact problem being brought up at the time this amendment was drafted and the concerns of president not being an officer were dismissed.
@@a-a-ron772 EXACTLY CORRECT!!! Article I, Sec. 6: "No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, BE APPOINTED TO ANY CIVIL OFFICE under the authority of the United States, .... and no person HOLDING ANY OFFICE UNDER THE UNITED STATES, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office." For all of the idiots trying to hold Trump accountable under Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment, why can't they read THE FIRST DAMN ARTICLE of the Constitution itself to find out that "CIVIL OFFICERS" and "OFFICES" don't apply to the ONLY FOUR ELECTED offices in the ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT??!!!? What the hell is wrong with people?
@HatsuneSquidward yes, officers are the different appointed heads of the departments such as secretary of defense. I've seen this claim that there were these discussions at the time and they concluded that the president should be included. I can only find the claims of the discussion and not the actual discussion. Who was in the discussion? Did everyone agree? Did the states know that they intended for the president to be included when they voted for the amendment to be passed?
It is remarkable that there are parts of the US Constitution, the highest law in the land, that can be argued around and be deemed to be un-enforceable.
The framers intended those parts to be made up as it went along and adapted to as times change, like successful countries do. They didn't foresee morons like John Roberts thinking they possessed some esoteric wisdom that should be applied to all relevant situations 250 years down the line. History repeatedly shows that countries that do not adapt with the times wither and die. The framers understood this. Constitutional "originalists" do not.
Everything that has not been legally tested can be argued about, and even stuff that has been legally tested can be argued about, especially when you have a Supreme Court that no longer cares about precedent. Democracy is always an ongoing conversation, there’s very little that would ever be considered “permanently settled”
That's not really the right way to think about it. The US holds the constitution as ultimately enforceable - that is, it cannot be questioned. Unfortunately its also pretty vague in a lot of ways (because it was never intended to be forever held on high as a holy text) so while everyone agrees that the constitution cannot be violated, its become common practice to try and weasel around the constitution by trying to convince the court to interpreting its vagarities in their favor. Technically the constitution is "enforced", its just not necessarily enforced in a way that the entirety of the population agrees with. In principle this is supposed to be figured out by SCOTUS - they're tasked with interpreting the constitution. But SCOTUS justices are just as human as anyone else. They can be biased. They can change their minds. They can just be flat out wrong. What they can't do is read the minds of a bunch of old white dudes who have been dead for a couple of centuries at this point. Their interpretations are opinions just like anyone else'. The difference being that their opinions have the force of law, so we're supposed to trust that they're doing the due diligence to think about a question from all angles and provide a well-conceived, impartial opinion rather than ruling via hot takes. That trust has been waning the past couple years following the appointment of Barret - primarily the "impartial" aspect given both the political lopsidedness that introduced as well as the mockery both her and Kavanaugh before her made of their respective Senate confirmation hearings. But it apparently hasn't waned enough for the Biden administration to risk changing the court makeup so we're stuck with it for now.
As someone who holds Trump in all due contempt, I still want the threshold for banning people from office to be very high, because once you set a precedent you're stuck with it. And next time it'll be a good guy banned for having, say, voted for Bernie Sanders or donated to an unpopular charity.
A very large percentage of them aren't too bright and have been raised in dogmatic belief (christian) households. They also tend to conflate unfounded arrogance with valid confidence, and since Trump is a lump of unfounded arrogance on legs... Yeah.
This is why I could never be a lawyer. The argument of "this doesn't apply to the president because they aren't an officer" is so frustratingly dumb. They heavily imply if not direct state section 3 applies to the president during the adoption proceedings. And the president holds an office, so they therefore must be an officer. The Legal precedent of an officer must be appointed to be an officer is so stupid. I don't like people playing with words to wriggle out of things; it leads to a certain lawlessness if we play with definitions like that
It's also plainly ridiculous when considered as a whole, right? So when they write the 14th amendment, they wanted to prevent the confederates and their allies from having any power, to prevent them from reversing everything... Do people seriously think that they thought "well, can't have them being a congressperson, can't have them being any sort of official... But you know what? The highest office in the land? Yeah, they're fine to go for the presidency." It's clearly not what was intended
At no point did trump as president make any statements eluding to trying to overthrow the government he stated to go Protest peacefully and in a non violent fashion that's not an insurrection much less inciting one. Your statement is either wilfully ignorant, or in simple denial if factual evidence. I don't like Trump, however one must look at all the known facts. Bidens a racist and a known criminal.
Be careful what you wish for. If you start banning people from running for office, it will be used against people of your party, too. If you want to prevent someone from holding an elected office, VOTE FOR THE PERSON THEY'RE RUNNING AGAINST. End of story.
If that were the case though, then anyone who ever even protested the US government would be barred from office, and that would be terrible for our freedoms
There's been a lot of time between the drafting of section 3 and now, but one thing that has not changed, is that legal scholars and professionals tend to be specific. If the drafters of section 3 meant for a particular official to be exempt from the strictures of section 3, the office they hold would have been named. Since section 3 of the 14th amendment does not, in plain and explicit language, state something to the clear effect of "this section does not apply to people holding the office of The President of the United States of America" then it should be pretty obvious, even to a navel gazing technocrat of an originalist, that no such exemption applies.
+1, and then there's the debating point that Devin tells us about when the Amendment was being considered in the Senate: 15:52. The Senators accepted that the Presidency was included by the plain language.
@@yesyes3010 Ah, you've arrived. I've been expecting you. I was wondering when some enterprising drooler would turn up, to draw false equivalence between prosecuting people who publicly, visibly, and on national television, commit serious crimes against a nation and its people, and Russia, a nation in which genuine, normal and just opposition to the government can land a person in prison from their teen age until their death. All I have to say to you, is that if you can't even spell the word disgusting, you aren't ready to use it in a sentence.
@@peteredwards2318 well, english is not my first language, but I hope even someone like you can understand my message. I know a male child like you are more interrested in going after the man instead of the ball, but I'm curious anyways, eventhough I know you most likely can answer a basic quistion purely reagrding the substance, but I will try anayways. Excatly which serious crimes do you think Donald Trump has commited?
Yes, the President of the United States is considered an officer. In fact, the President is the highest-ranking officer in the executive branch of the federal government. According to the U.S. Constitution, the President is the "Commander in Chief" of the armed forces and holds various executive powers and responsibilities. The term "officer" can apply to individuals who hold a position of authority or responsibility within a government or organization, and in this case, the President certainly qualifies as such an officer, specifically as the chief executive officer of the nation.
Correct. Not that hasn't been tried over and over again, but you know, the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) stops that every single time.
@@timl9724Genuine question, not a challenge: are any leaders of the 2020 riots top candidates running for president? I’m fairly uneducated on this topic.
In an actual 1st World Country that had a functional judicial system, the former guy would have been in jail on January 7th. It's pathetic how long this is taking. I have zero faith that he will ever see a prison cell.
Are you saying the greatest and most powerful country in the world isn't a 1st world country with a fair and just judicial system? You must hate America 😂
@@echidnabladeAmerica is certainly the greatest in terms of “richest, most exceptional, most influential, most powerful”, but NOT in terms of “best at everything”. Our legal and political system has clearly failed repeatedly under the pressure of Trump and the Republicans and their total abandonment of good faith. That’s without even getting into the two-tier system where punishments only reliably apply to poor people. Trump basically committed the most serious crime possible on live TV and gave a running commentary confirming his guilt, and there were zero consequences. Any other person would have been jailed pending trial before the insurrection even dispersed.
The laws are written like this intentionally so that the enforcers can pick and choose whoever they want to arrest and to let off easy. We've been a police state for a long, long time now - it's just harder for white people to notice.
The law isn't flawed though. It's fair. Did Trump really engage in an insurrection? He wasn't present so, not really. Was it really an insurrection? Most legal analysis says no.
@@warlordofbritannia "The purpose of the law is to make things easier and life fairer" No, the purpose of the law is to define the standards that we, as a society, feel that people should live by. Those standards might not be easy and it's certainly arguable whether they're fair: a communist would argue that privately owned businesses are unfair; a business owner would argue that it's unfair for the communists to confiscate their business.
If one person can be convicted of violating the 14th Amendment for participating in an insurrection, anyone else who participated in that insurrection should also be disqualified from ever holding any office. Either that, or the American legal system is far beyond dysfunctional.
But you'd have to prove they were part of the insurrection in some manner. Imagine somebody is barred from office because they were seen in the crowd when it was outside the Capitol, but when things escalated and the crowd actually started trying to break into it, they left and went home. Would that be a just outcome?
That’s why we have a Congress although right now it may be questionable Congress is supposed to be updating the constitution! Such as don’t pee outside
The notion that the law would protect a person, who had taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, then violated that oath by conspiring to attack Congress/prevent the peaceful transfer of power, is ridiculous. Such persons could never be trusted to uphold democracy.
@@yesyes3010I don't think you know Russian politics very well. Rarely do the laws or courts come into play. Unless Trump dies of polonium poisoning or disappears under mysterious circumstances it's not at all the same. But actually thinking through responses is hard when you can just compare people to Trump's second favorite dictator.
@@yesyes3010 its not about going after political opponents tho, its because he very publicly created an insurrection. You of course know that though, you're just playing politics. Besides, you can't honestly tell me republicans wouldn't do the same if a democrat had committed Jan 6th
@@yesyes3010 if it really was about going after political opponents then why aren't there any efforts to remove DeSantis, Vivek or literally any other conservative candidate hmmmmm Also: "disquisting"
@@alexrogers777 for the same reason that it was only Tucker Carlson that got removed from fox news, and not Sean Hanity or Lindsey Ingram. Currently, they are not a threat.
"The United States is a nation of laws - badly written and randomly enforced" -Frank Zappa Though the biggest problem we're facing today is that half the voting populace appears to at least be favorable to the idea that the USA is supposed to be a white Christian nation, or find that idea to be secondary to, say, low taxes and gasoline prices. If ex-president Donnie had tried this in 1980, when America was significantly more white and nearly all Christian, my guess is he'd be in the penitentiary, assuming he was even elected in the first place. Religiosity in the USA is in retreat, with each successive generation falling more into non-Christian faiths or (more worrisome to many believers), atheists, agnostics, or "nones". While the mean age in the USA is 38, many brands of Christianity (including evangelical and Catholic) are in upper half of their fifth decade. At any rate, I think anyone who incites a riot that proceeds to trash the capitol shouldn't be president, yet here we are.
I did not realize until I was deconstructing Christianity, but it really is more about Reagan and Trump that it is about Jesus. One of many epiphanies I had was when I tried to find out which politician corrupted Christianity.... it wasn't a republican, it was a Caesar. And that's how I got stuck thinking about the Roman Empire.
"hold any office, civil or military" Whether or not it is an "officer", he held the Presidency and as you noted it is repeatedly called an "office". It is also the commander in chief of the military. Saying the president is not an officer, or did not hold an office, of the government is a very odd. argument. Enumerating the Congress and Electors could be that they are not officers. Officers of the government being in the executive branch. Representatives and Senators have no power themselves and can only act as a corporate body.
I find it extremely worrying that a disqualification clause needs to exist, as that implies that people will otherwise willingly vote for someone demonstrably unfit for office.
I think the idea is that it's legally elegant for there to not be a disqualification clause. Of course, the last decade has shown me that elegance is not a very good enforcer of justice
Let's not forget that, while considering the second impeachment, each house of Congress found by a simple majority that the Barking Pumpkin did commit insurrection. Thus one of the three branches of government has already issued its verdict.
The individuals did not allow the former President or Vice President of the Confederate States of America. This should be self evident as the 14th @amendment has been used since the civil war therefore it was not specifically wrote exclusively for the Civil War, otherwise after the last Civil War insurrectionist died the 14th Amendment would have been stricken from the Amendments as no other individual would ever fall under this specific amendment. Just like every other amendment including the right to free speech would only be valid until the last member of the founding government bodies died, thereby expunging every Amendment once the people alive at the time of passing would not currently apply to any future generations.
Out of curiosity, does the Constitution have rules about HOW to disqualify a 34.5 year old from running, or does the law simply say that they aren't qualified and states just bar the youngster from the ballot because of it? We've had 155 years to figure out how to implement this. It just should not be this hard! It's only hard because people want to make it hard. Just because they've never had to consider this stipulation before, doesn't mean it didn't exist, nor does it mean it's less official. My questions is will the officers in these states faithfully uphold the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Because no one should have to be psychic and predict that people would suddenly forget how to use dictionaries 150 later in order to write an Amendment the Constitution.
I seem to remember a great deal of hot air being blown over whether Barack Obama was disqualified on the basis of not being a natural-born citizen. What was the proposal to disqualify him in the event that that would have been proved?
@@MagicScientist "There must be someone that decides if a candidate meets all the requirements to be candidate." Like a lot of things spelled out in the Constitution and laws, historically it has largely been honor system. Everyone agreed what the rules said, and those people excluded by the rules just didn't try to break them. Now we have a whole population of self-entitled narcissists who have never been held accountable for anything in their lives, and believe the rules don't apply to them. So they go ahead and do what they want regardless of what the rules say. Since no one knows how to stop them, then the rules become worthless.
@@MagicScientist The answer is largely the Secretaries of State of each State are responsible for assessing qualifications. Which is why the Minn. Sec of State is a mewling coward because he's literally saying he won't do his job.
@@milhousevanhoutan9235 so then doesn't that mean that the Secretary of State in Minn. is not faithfully discharging their duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States, particularly the 14th Amendment, section 3?
I mean, while I agree with the sentiment, the guy is hard to leave to his own devices. I'm just as sick of hearing about him as the next guy, and I know he loves seeing his name in the headlines, but he keeps doing newsworthy things. However, if the ex-president commits a crime, the people should know, especially if he committed them during his term in office. Plus, he's running for office again, so the news *should* report on that, even if he's running in bad faith just to save his own ass from living the rest of his short life in prison. They should be focusing on the other candidates equally, so not to king-make anyone (like they did with Donnie in the run-up to the 2016 election). No publicity is bad publicity, ya know?
Because he is a republican and the idiots in the Republican Party will ignore anything that more extreme republicans do. Look at Texas. The exact same thing is happening but on a state scale. Crime committed by high ranking republican - general consensus is that he is rotten and should be removed from office - “that’s politically motivated so he is exempt from the law”
Each house of congress is the judge of its members' qualifications. There is no clear judge of the qualifications for other offices other than the courts by default.
I definitely understand the desire to bar someone from holding office if they had previously held an office and engaged in activity breaking their oath. That being said, I don't understand why the Office of the POTUS would be excepted from that rule. It's basically saying, "We don't want insurrectionist former officers to hold future office, unless they were in the highest and most powerful office, in which case it's OK if they want to hold that office again."
@@yesyes3010 I'm really just commenting on the ambiguity of the law or the strangeness of exempting the highest office of the country from that law. That being said, a convicted criminal would be more than merely a "political opponent". Also, if this were Russia, everyone who participated in Jan 6 would have fallen out of a window or died from a mysterious heart attack by now.
Because it's based on class. Poor people get tormented for the rest of their lives even by just stealing food. Meanwhile, rich bastards bribe courts and receive special treatment.
Well generally the US has this thing called due process and presumption of innocence so it isn't very popular in the US to legally bar people based on unproven alligations...
@@AlbatrossCommando disqualify, not bar. Disqualification happens because the person doesn't meet the requirements, being too young, not born in the USA, aiding an insurrection. Barring someone would be an external agency actively preventing someone who met the requirements from running...
Not gonna lie, I was buying the “President isn’t an Officer of the United States” argument, until you brought up the originalist argument and now it seems pretty clear to me.
The Minnesota Sec of State also pointed out that state law gives citizens there the right to bring cases to disqualify candidates... which is exactly what is happening now. I think he was basically saying "please make me disqualify Trump" ;)
True. If i were to be guilty of a quarter, FSB will have me in their basement the moment charges were made. Russia is not best country in the world, but if you were accused of such things with proof, then no lawyer will save you. Luckily you can avoid such accusations as forever president of russia.
Pro tip: if the question is whether a given law applies to Donald Trump, the answer is, always and everywhere, a resounding "No." The US justice system has been fairly unanimous on that point.
⚖ Will this work? Spoiler: no it won't.
✍ Supercharge your writing with Grammarly and get 20% off Grammarly Premium: legaleagle.link/grammarly
😂
Erm, a law is self-executing if no qualifications or conditions that determine an underlying requirement are established within the law. That is to say, the section three of the 14th Amendment, having no requirements of conviction of a crime, and mere assertion that if an officer of the government, having taken a sworn oath to uphold the Constitution, engages in insurrection or aiding the enemies of the country, then they're automatically disqualified. It's a Prima Facia disqualification, requiring no other intervention to determine disqualification. Just like any other US Amendment. You have a right to free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press. There are no qualifiers to determine time, place, necessitating court intervention to assert the applicability of the first amendment. Hereto is the case for the 14th Amendment.
How about 18 USC 2383?
The Office of the President is not disqualified. Quite often to understand the intent of a law the courts turn to the papers, writings, and arguments made in the passing of a law or amendment. That is why the Federalist Papers are often referenced in constitutional law questions. The discussion between the two senators who passed the 14th Amendment asserts the Presidency is not excluded and not intended to be excluded. Furthermore, the Presidency, for the purposes of other laws, is defined as an office, and the President an officer. For example, 18 USC 241, 242, and 245.
In the vernacular of the time when the 14th Amendment was passed into law, an officer of the government was any official sworn to an oath to uphold the US Constitution. Ergo, the President is as much an officer of the government as a police officer is, or a USPS delivery person is. The express language of the 14th Amendment is clear, regardless of the current debates.
@@mnemosynevermont5524 That's a furtherance of the 14th Amendment, and it applies to anybody and everybody, regardless of stance or office. If Trump were indicted under it this would be an absolute disqualification. This doesn't impact the prima facia nature of the 14th Amendment's section 3 disqualification.
If we could step back a moment and look at this "is the President an officer" debate from the perspective of the 14's authors, I think we could all agree that the people who wrote the 14th amendment probably included the President in their "don't let traitors hold these positions" list
15:52 They explicitly mentioned that the President and Vice President were included as officers
@@elephantyarn7378 No, they mentioned that the presidency and vice presidency were *offices* under the United States.
@@theduder2617 Legal terms often deviate from common usage.
@@jdotozokay but isn't the president also considered the commander-in-chief of the military? shouldn't that count for him being considered an officer? (genuinely confused here lol)
I don't think the people drafting the fourteenth amendment were overly worried about this. I don't think they foresaw the election of someone who would try to overthrow the Constitution. My knowledge of members of the Confederacy is limited. Did Jefferson Davis ever take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States? If not, why would they limit it to people who previously swore an oath to the Constitution? Would they have wanted him running for president? My guess is that they didn't expect the people as a whole to elect an insurrectionist to office. They were more concerned about the people of the Confederate states putting insurrectionists in office at any level. They didn't spell it out clearly because they never saw a situation where a president would try to overthrow the Constitution through insurrection and people would allow that person access to the presidency again. But if you take that perspective, you need to remove every member of the House and Senate who did not vote to impeach/convict Trump over the insurrection because they have engaged in giving aid and comfort to the president who engaged in insurrection.
I like that the defense against the 14th amendment has mostly been "Trump isn't an officer of the united states" not "he didn't do an insurrection"
Founders did not expect POTUS and SC justices to be potentially corrupt and therefore did not see a need to fully flesh out the mechanism for their discipline or removal.
Even if Trump himself isn't found guilty of inciting insurrection, by promising to pardon people convicted of insurrection he is giving aid and comfort to Americas enemies.
I firmly believe he cannot be held liable for causing an insurrection. He didn't engage in anything directly enough to qualify. So I think the whole point is moot
The President is one of the few named officers in the US Constitution.
These Democrats are ignoring the Due Process part of the 14th Amendment. Until Trump is convicted, this is all nonsense. Secretary of States don't get the discretion to decide who can and can't run based on their opinions. Otherwise, Republicans can decided to pull Biden from ballots based on Red States elected officials' "interpretations" of treason.
14th amendment authors: Make it clear, make it clear!
14th amendment: very long and detailed and all-inclusive
People today: uhhh what is an "officer"?
if it wasn't that word they would pick another one to protect their guy
@@eljanrimsa5843 It depends on what your definition of the word "is" is.
trump is innocent of all the DOJ’s fake crimes and will be your president of the united states once more
@BlizzardofOze, Both are attempts to wriggle out of something.
@@BlizzardofOze "AKSHUALLY, 'is' implies that the officer is currently holding a office. Which Trump does, because the election was rigged and he actually won, but right now it is more convenient for me to say he didn't, so I say he is not currently an officer and therefore the 14th ammendment doesn't apply!"
Personally I wager that the reason nobody specifically included the president and vice president in the 14th is because nobody at the time thought that a president would ever attempt to overthrow the democracy that the country was literally founded on.
or that then after that nobody would vote for him
@@thodan467 At that point in history it was literally impossible for the commoner to give informed votes. That's why this country is *not a Democracy.* At all. And that's because the people who made this country *believed we were too stupid for our own good.* And they were right. But we're at a point where unlike the Second Amendment... literally nobody could not have foreseen this event.
So I think it was more of a "We'd never let the idiot peasants actually get what they voted for."
I doubt that's the case, to be honest. A lot of high ranking officials had seceded from the United States.
nobody would ever attempt to overthrow their own office, Trump was president until Jan 20. not Ford, not Reagan and not Biden, who was he trying to overthrow?
I'm not a trump supporter but that shit was stolen
If being "commander in chief" of the US Army does not constitute being an officer of the US, then what would be?!?!
Technically he's the Commander in Chief of the entire military (which includes Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, and Space Force, and any other branches that may be created) not just the Army. I'm not 100% sure he can be an officer of every branch at once, especially if he's not directly in the military in any one specific branch.
And he's a civil officer too. It's literally called the _office_ of the presidency.
I guess according to the Qult's interpretation of the constitution, if you're both a civil and military officer then those two things cancel each other out or something.
@@ClonedGamer001 being "Commander-in-Chief" is a civilian title. Trump has never served in the military, nor does he hold any formal military rank, only a civilian title while he was President. But, being Supreme Commander of our Military does seem to give him a title as an Officer of the US Government, as that title is appointed to the elected President (my interpretation)
That position is a civilian position held by President, not an officer in the Military. He is not holding an appointed office, nor in the military. An officer of the state refers to an elected position, or military.
@@bobjames2312 A "Commander in Chief" (or "Supreme Commander") is someone who has complete command and control over an armed force. It isn't a part of the regular rank structure for any of the branches, but it 100% is a military title.
The idea the the President of the United States is not an officer of the United States is so patently absurd its offensive to even have to discuss it with a straight face
American politics is so patently absurd it's offensive to even have to discuss it with a straight face. Just nuke it and start from zero lol
I keep having people tell me voting isn't a right... because it isn't enumerated. As if A) the 9A doesn't exist, or B) that the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments don't call voting a right. I get that the (non-legalese) Law of First Impressions (the primacy effect in psychology) is hard to break, but it's kind of necessary to learn how to break it in order to be a fully functioning adult.
There's no way the drafters DIDN'T consider the President and Vice President to be included officers by definition considering they just impeached Andrew Johnson 4 months before they ratified the 14th amendment.
The entire republican party is patently absurd and offensive.
Amen
It should be obvious that anyone who has attempted to overthrow the government or committed treason should not be able to hold any government position. How ridiculous that this comes down to legal semantics.
More case that the nation is weak. Any other place would have exiled him by now or prosecuted.
@@user-account-not-found
Yeah, when one party is displaying genuine, legitimate cult behaviour and protecting their guy at all costs theres not much the sane among us can do. The GOP is realistically beyond repair at this point. They should just start over with a whole new party
Except that he wasn’t convicted of anything like that. Before you can legally treat him as an insurrectionist you need to convict him of leading an insurrection. Honestly I kinda want this to go through because I think it would be hilarious if after this the republicans start a hearing for whether Biden is an insurrectionist, lose, then get to ban him from office anyway.
The solution is to write (or rewrite) the appropriate penalties and laws to bulletproof against semantics. I'm a believer of using plain text documentation accompanying the laws and written by the lawmakers themselves to give context and reason to the laws. So we wouldn't have to ask a court to interpret Congress's intent; it would be spelled out. It would also cut out some legal people's creative license when lawyering.
When it comes to anything legal, it always comes down to legal semantics. That's literally how having a legal system works. What would be worse is if things were just illegal because they "should be obvious".
This is the kind of thing that drives lay people insane. My reading of this amendment is "If you were involved in trying to spark an insurrection, you're not allowed to say how the country is run." It feels _very_ cut and dry, and people are trying to weasel around it because of the wording. I very much doubt the Union even conceived that such a person would even come close to the position of president.
I agree yet Biden is president. More information every day about his corruption.
Well, it's especially bad when they're quoting cases that have nothing to do with the President to justify how he's not an Officer. While specifically ignoring a SCOTUS decision in Nixon v Fitzgerald that specifically deals with the President and ruled that he is an officer, specifically the "Chief Constitutional Officer."
Be careful. Very careful. Actually reading the Constitution may subject you to all manner of insults and threats. Read our basic law? How radical!
I certainly didn't! But I also would never have conceived of an American using a flagpole to bludgeon a cop!
it's simple if the american people think he is guilty they don't vote him in. leave it to the people. i just hope they don't vote sleepy joe anyone but him. but i am sure that it was left for the congress to decide. which they voted. now it's up to the people because congress left the door open for it. people want to be mad be mad at congress. it is up to them to disbar. by 2/3 vote to eliminate such a threat and then the people. that is my take on the legalness. if so many people think he should not be in office then they will vote accordingly.
If you asked the writers of the 14th amendment, "should someone who, while president of the United States, who insighted an insurrection against the Federal government, should they be eligible to run for president again?"
I think it's pretty obvious that they'd say:
"Sorry... WHAT???"
Great point. Now, very serious question, if you had seen video of Joe Biden using the Whitehouse tours to find children to fondle, way back in 2012 when he was vice president, would you have changed your view of his eligibility for President in 2020?
@cubefreak123They are the interpreters and unfortunately that means they can interpret it in their favor
They'd probably say WHAT because they didn't understand the question...
@cubefreak123and when several members of that court were sworn in under the guy in question?
I'm pretty sure their actual answer would be "Did I stutter?"
If the POTUS is not an officer, why make him swear the oath of allegianc?
You mean the Oath of office?
@@helenevoyer5317 🤦♂️You're right. I stand corrected. Thank you.
How is he not an officer?
@@solido888
sophistry and authoritarianism. potus is obviously an officer of the united states, if the united states is still a republic.
@@solido888 yes. Since he does take an oath of office, plus your President is also the commander in chief. 🤦
Using Chief Justice Roberts' own words, "The people do not vote for officers of the United States", when in fact the people do not vote for the President due to our Electoral College system. The people vote for electors and the electors vote for the president.
I suppose by that reading, the president is an appointed office, by the Electors.
Works for me.
Damn, that's a very good point. The president is *appointed* by the electors (who are themselves *appointed* by the respective state governments).
So really, as a side question: what are the people voting for again?
I mean if you look at the current state of the electrical college in the next couple of years the republicans are going to be voting themselves permanently out of federal office.
Not exactly, the president is elected by the electors.
An appointment assumes that someone selects another, not that voting took place.
@@rendymonyab Is that not just semantics? They say vote.... You say someone selects.... These words are interchangeable, so technically these words mean the same thing. It is certainly is something lawyers would squabble about. That includes pretty much the whole system depending perhaps which side of the aisle you're on.
The President not being included in this would be like arguing the CFO isn't allowed to commit fraud but the CEO can commit a little fraud, as a treat
The intent of the 14th Amd. Was that no man, having betrayed an oath he swore, should be allowed to reswear that same oath. We can quibble about wording or nitpick enforcement, but it really boils down to "did Trump betray his oath?" and legally "should he be allowed to swear it again?"
He betrayed the oath no should no be allowed to swear oath let alone be president.
For me you shouldn't even need to hold any position in the government for it to be a good idea to preclude you from running again if you were part of an insurrection. It's just common sense, a person with a criminal record wouldn't be hired as a LEO ffs...
You would think bud unless the wording covers every situation and circumstance pocible then their will always be a question witch I think is ridiculous in some ways.
and since 99.9% of the people in attendance on Jan 6th were surprised when they learned what some hooligans did on the other side of the building and then everyone was bummed that they had to go home early and the whole day was ruined... I think it's pretty obvious that it was not what Trump intended
@@jacobjohnson8069 I know you're not debating the wording when you think possible is spelled "pocible" and you use witch instead of which...
So when they wrote the bill, they all agreed that the president wasn't excluded... Seems like a no-brainer.
Also, can we address how crazy it is that the defense to "As an officer of the country, you committed insurrection" is "Is he an officer?"
It's like if the Human resources person robs a bank and we all sat around saying "Is the HR person a manager or a supervisor?" THAT'S NOT THE IMPORTANT PART!
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
"I feel like I'm taking crazy pills."
At least you aren't alone. I'm convinced we are living in the "mirror universe" where Spock has a beard.
It's not that crazy, it's pretty mundane. The first question that anyone ought to ask when enforcing a law is, "Does this law apply here?"
The crazy part is that it's not clear.
@@jdotoz It seems like it _is_ clear though, obviously the president should be included under "officers of the US."
@@griffin123122 To a layman, perhaps. And I agree that it would have made sense to include the person in whom the entire executive authority is vested. But they certainly didn't do it explicitly, and there is a decent case to be made based on how the term is used elsewhere in the Constitution that the President and Vice President are in a different category.
@@jdotoz I don't care if they "didn't do it explicitly." The President was explicitly included under "holding any office" during the drafting of the amendment, there's no reason for it to suddenly not be an office when it comes to determining who an "officer" is.
Edit: also before you come in with "oh but elsewhere it refers to Officers _and_ the President" that's officer with a capital O, indicating it's a specific title. This is officer with a lowercase o, indicating it's anyone who holds an office.
The idea that someone could be disqualified from being a Senator but still be THE PRESIDENT is insane
Think of it this way: if Trump wins the election, then the people have voted for insurrection. That's always been his platform, and the Republican platform, anyway.
The 14th covers all elected offices at all state and federal levels. You cannot get elected to any public office once you do what trump and other republicans did.
Because 'Murika.
A senator who took part in an insurrection. It is questionable how the leader of a country can insurrect against himself...
TBF the main difference is that some are "elected" while others are "appointed." The latter can be said that it's under the constraint of 14 amendment. At least that's my understanding from this video. So in this case, if a senator is elected, he can still be qualified.
If this clause was not supposed to stop people like Trump, then what is it even for? Firing angry postal workers?
It's debatable whether the people who wrote the amendment intended for it to apply to anything other than Confederates. (That doesn't stop it from being applicable to other insurrections though, especially as written.)
@@jliller True, although they could have specified that. Because it is so general it is obvious they wrote it knowing it could possibly be used in the future.
@@O5680That’s kinda the point of the constitution, it’s VERY general in most of the amendments.
It’s for all the people literally listed.
It's also whether jan 6 can be considered a rebellion or insurrection
So many situations where people felt they didn't need to write a rule because it was so obvious.
It's the same for warning labels and safety features. Never underestimate human stupidity. They will find a way.
A lot of rules are made because people had to break them beforehand.
You'd think "No peeing in the pool" is common sense, but some jokers keep doing it, so it's gotta be on paper.
@@NecroNathanconYeah, I still havent gotten over the fact, that the producers of microwave ovens had to add a "do not dry ur pet in the microwave" to the users manual, coz an idiot "dried" their poor poodle in it with the obvious tragic outcome, and the producer was actually held liable for not sufficiently anticipating the depth of human stupidity.
@@dfuher968 I guess in the future, they will just have to dry their poodles in the regular oven, like a normal human.
horse (n., pl.: horses): everyone knows what a horse is
It's like... It's like watching an Olympic race and seeing somebody comfortably win, but then the guy who came second demands that all of his supporters (who take up less than half the stadium but get all the best seats) go and storm the winners' podium and take back the race by force. But then, when all of those supporters actually go and attack the real winner, despite video evidence of the race, the referees have to very slowly decide whether that runner was actually a runner and whether he actually encouraged the supporters to go and attack the winner. Then all of the sports media complain about the real winner stealing the race, and half the people in the Olympic committee support the guy who clearly lost and fight tooth and nail against every attempt to punish the loser for inciting the attack on the winner, and all of the supporters in the stadium claim that all of the video footage was faked by the winner's home country, and...
It's disquisting that they go after political opponents like this. You know who else does that? Russia.
@@yesyes3010 except that Trump, you may have noticed, ACTUALLY INCITED AN INSURRECTION.
@@yesyes3010and Republicans!
@@briangentry3714 how so?
@@yesyes3010 Trump's whole 2016 campaign platform was to lock up Hillary.
I'm sure the people who wrote these amendments wanted us to take something that was written at such a length and complexity so as not to be misinterpreted, and then argue over the semantics of that document instead of acknowledging the obvious and clear intent of the document 😑
That's the law for you, in order to rule on something the law that you're arguing over has to be ritin thousands of pages long to cover every situation and circumstance pocible.
welcome to legalese my friend, we all hate it here.
As someone who had to salute him as the COMMANDING OFFICER-IN-CHIEF every morning during their military stint, I would not have been able to contain my laughter after hearing that defense.
My exact thoughts about Biden
Delicious tea
I missed the part where President Biden attempted to obstruct an election and seize power 🤔
You were literally around trump on a everyday basis... if so how was he? He seems like a down to earth kind of person
@@ernestgary6812considering that almost everyone he hand picks to hire ends up turning on him, he seems like a real standup guy. But since that doesn’t fit with the myth, go ahead and believe that a guy who lives in several country clubs is actually an Everyman would love to have beer with the downtrodden.
I'm baffled by the idea that the people who put the 14th amendment together did so with the understanding that it would be fine if insurrectionists became president of the country they tried to destroy. Should be very straightforward for our originalist friends at The Federalist Society.
"Insurrectionists shouldn't lead the country; with exception to the leader of the country."
Yes. It's pretty straight forward that the leaders of the 2020 BLM insurrection definitely should be barred from governing.
@@timl9724 I don't really grant that the BLM protests were an insurrection but, heck, if that got Trump off the ballot I'd be happy to say whoever led BLM shouldn't be allowed to run for president.
@@timl9724BLM we’re never insurrectionists, they were rioters and even then it was only after police backlash. However, blm leaders not being able to run for office is fine if trump also isn’t, that’s at least fair. It’s funny that instead of defending your parties actions, you make false equivalences that only make you look worse
@@cantthinkofaname5046 Democrat party leaders specifically called for violence and confrontation on numerous occasions, often specifically referencing the violence of the Founders (revolution) as a reason for law enforcement to stand down. They were very specific as to what they were after. They advocated for the events that were happening to directly alter the governance of the nation. They stood behind a terrorist organization known to support the terroristic tenets of Marxism. And they supported this violence for the better part of a year. They even promoted annexations and de facto annexations (no go zones) on U.S. soil. The violence and intimidation alone directly affected the outcome of one of the most anticipated elections in U.S. history. They knew that it would work that way. And they said it out loud. It was the most calamitous period domestically in U.S. history, outside of the Civil War. Trump, of course, was weak for his failure to meet this challenge head on, hiding in his bunker as he did, but that just makes him a coward, unwilling to deal with the traitors and insurrectionists on his watch.
I don't have any faith in the U.S. judicial system.
I remain conservatively optimistic. The courts tend to do the right thing on large matters like this. Recently there's been some SCOTUS stuff that's not been great but I can't imagine they want to deal with every sitting president marching on the capitol to overturn an election as long as they remember to wink at the end of their speech.
He won't be found guilty on all counts in all cases but he's not coming away clean.
@@bac1308 I don't believe for one second that this Supreme Court, which took away women's right to bodily independence remember, would do anything to prevent a domestic terrorist from taking office as long as that terrorist agreed with them.
Trump shouldn't even be allowed to run since he's fully untrustworthy to hold a security clearance
Trump was actually indicted.
that's gotta be worth something
@@bac1308 "The courts tend to do the right thing on large matters like this" I don't see this. The supreme court has opened the political donation system in a way, that already broke democracy and made it a system, that is very near to an oligarchy, because the billionaires rule with their billions -- beginning with the fact, who will come on the ballots and ending with the funding of the campaign.
But yes, the supreme court is far away from being corrupted. We saw that already.
Calling out the Floridian education system was a 10/10 jab and I am here for it
I actually spit my drink out, not just figuratively 😂 loved the shade
Also... if the president wants to argue he is not an "executive officer of the United States", I'm not sure how he could justify being the "supreme executive"
At this point, it feels like we’re operating on Air Bud logic. There’s nothing in the rule book that says a dog can’t play basketball, just like there’s nothing in the rule book that says a criminal who tried to overthrow the government can’t be president. In both cases, there’s a reason why it’s not in the rule book - because the people who wrote the rule book never imagined that this scenario could be possible.
Can the former guy play Basketball? That seems like just as sensible a question …. I bet Bud would beat him, though. 😂
It's in the book that only natural born citizens can be president - not for racist/xenophobic reasons, but because we don't want to risk candidates with divided loyalties or possible foreign agents getting planted into the highest office. The intent is quite clear that anyone who is not loyal to the US shouldn't be able to run, but nooooo we have to ignore the law's intent and pick apart semantics instead
The oath the president takes states:”support and defend the Constitution against ALL enemies,foreign and domestic. That includes if You yourself are the enemy. Although it’s not a law, he is still guilty of violating his oath of office. That should mean something!
Yup, makes it perjury.
If “Oath of Office” were a disqualifier, we wouldn’t have any politicians lol.
You're assuming he did something criminal. There is the mistake. Prove he did.
Well fact is Trump did. There was no insurrection, it was a riot and Trump didn't support nor defend the rioters. He didn't even tell them to riot. He never once told them to storm the capitol. In his speech he told them to go to the front lawn, to chant and cheer and protest peacefully. The people had every legal right to go to the front lawn a protest peacefully. The ones that stormed the capitol and rioted broke the law and they did so on their own accord. Trump had nothing to do with it. Now you want some who has been violating that oath look at child sniffing racist dictator Joe Biden.
By your own admission, he did nothing wrong and followed his oath if he genuinely believed that there were enemies trying to underscore an election through fraud. that would constitute defending the constitution from domestic enemies.
Even offering aid or comfort to insurectionist is enough to qualify. Calling them good people and offering to cover legal fees would be enough let alone everything else he did to set the stage and everything that has come after
If I had read a novel before 2000 of a president doing anything that Trump has done, I'd throw the book away as being unbelievable.
Right? One would think it was satire, applying 3rd world politics to the US.
Even the 1962 novel "Seven Days in May" only contemplated a military coup.
@@MrShobar Or "Night of Camp David" by the same author (one of them anyway).
In 100 years, people will read about the events of this time and laugh because it seems so ridiculous. They will wonder how anyone could support him.
Because it’s not true. Duhhhhhh
How can the president NOT be an "officer"? He's the commander in chief and his position is CALLED the office of the president
He is disqualified.
what's the point of the 14th amendment anyway if it can't disqualify a clear threat like trump. we would be electing someone who explicitly announced he would suspend the constitution itself.
Presidents aren't officers of the military. Despite being the commander, the military recognizes the presidency as a civilian position, not a military one.
@@vinsanity40kThe people the 14th Amendment was specifically written about were all pardoned after Lincoln died. There arguably hasn't been a point since then.
@@The_One_In_Black Until, you know, a sitting President encouraged his constituents to overturn an election.
How about all the members of Congress who were also engaged in the insurrection? Let’s get them off the ballot as well.
Don't forget his flagrant inability to hold a security clearance heck he even stole nuclear documents the president cannot declassify
How about if we dont turn the USA into a banana Republic and let people vote? Socialist in Venezuela just made the opposition female nominee ineligible for 15 years. Did the same thing to the guy before.
Fact is it wasn't a insurrection it was a riot and another fact is Trump didn't tell anyone to riot. He didn't promote any of it. In his speech which all these medias refuse to show, he said to go to the front lawn, chant and cheer. Protest peacefully. The people there had every legal right to go to the front lawn and protest. The ones who went into the capital did so on their own accord not by the word of Trump. Trump is not responsible for what happened that day.
Fully agree!
What insurrection? Not a single shot fired. It was more like a left wing protest.
When this amendment was written, i'm pretty sure they thought they would never have to use it, but have it just in case.
I think they wrote it to bar confederates from office
@@izzygrosof
Yeah... I'm fairly sure it was used *very* soon after writing it XD
@@haxie4516 It was only used once. The people that it would have most been used on were kept out of office in other ways.
Commander in chief sure sounds like an officer of the United States
That's what I was thinking, he is the Commander in Chief of the US Military, and therefore holds a Military Office
Do some LEGAL research for a change. Congress does not MAKE and courts do not ENFORCE laws based on what they "sound like." The President, as "Commander-in-chief" is a civilian. C-in-C is NOT a military title and the President is subject to NO PROVISION of military law.
The Commander-In-Chief seems like it's definitely "an officer of the United States" so if the President also simultaneously holds that title then shouldn't Trump be ineligible?
Conmander in Chief is a civilian position. He is not an officer in the military so no.
Nobody was convicted of insurrection so it wasn't an insurrection. Seditious conspiracy simply means PLANNING to commit sedition/insurrection. Not the same thing. More importantly, at no point in time did Trump incite a riot.
This activist “lawyer” doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Congress took advantage of the last sentence of section 3 in the late 1800s
“The right to remove disabilities imposed by this Section was exercised by Congress at different times on behalf of enumerated individuals.1 In 1872, the disabilities were removed, by a blanket act, from all persons except Senators and Representatives of the Thirty-sixth and Thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States.2 Twenty-six years later, Congress enacted that the disability imposed by section 3 . . . incurred heretofore, is hereby removed.3”
The president takes an oath as a president under article 2. Not as an officer under article 4
The courts should not make vibes based judicial decisions but be informed by past precedence and constitutional reasoning
Unfortunately "seems like" is not a particularly strong legal argument. Not to mention the question of whether the article would include the military just in general or if "officer of the US" only narrowly encompasses governmental positions. The military also using the term "officer" does not necessarily imply that connection.
The notion that the writers of the 14th amendment would have been OK with Jefferson Davis getting elected POTUS after the civil war is beyond ridicule. The intent is clear.
That's not the argument being made. All offices are barred under the Amendment very clearly. The Amendment, however, only applies if you've sworn an oath of office for Congress or for being an officer of the United States. The Amendment does not list the Presidency as an office that meets the criterion to have disqualification applied to you, thus committing disqualifying acts as President/VP (or having only been President/VP) is only actually disqualifying if the term "Officers of the United States" covers the Presidency/VP.
Jefferson Davis was previously a Senator and Secretary of War, thus clearly is covered as a person subject to disqualification, whereas Trump was only President, which is not necessarily an "Officer", though it would be an absurd exception if intentionally drafted as such and an equally absurd oversight for the SCOTUS to uphold if unintentionally drafted as such.
Well said.
No Jefferson Davis citizenship being revoked made him ineligible to run for president. It was not restored until 1978 by President Carter.
Jefferson Davis (or any confederate, really) would still be eligible for the presidency. The disqualification clause says "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..."
Read it closely. Even if you ARE subject to the disqualification clause like Jefferson Davis, it still does NOT say you can't be president.
I think whoever drafted the document should have taken a creative writing course with our sponsor for today's comment, SkillShare.
@@guacre2675 *"Even if you ARE subject to the disqualification clause like Jefferson Davis, it still does NOT say you can't be president."*
I would disagree with that. In what you cited, it says:
*"...or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State..."*
Whether or not the President is an Officer of the United States is a distinct question from whether or not the Presidency constitutes an office of the United States.
I don't think that there is any question that the office of President falls within the scope of "any office, civil or military, under the United States" and therefore within the scope of offices you would be barred from.
He took 187 minutes...3 hours to stop his followers. He was watching the threat against the country on tv for 3 hours. That's not a worthy leader.
What's wild is that by the wording of this clause suggests that a seditionist may hold office so long as they swore no oath prior to their attempted sedition.
It not only suggests that, it SAYS that. Unless you were a member of the military (which you could argue that only even applies to officers because officers are commissioned where as enlisted are not, so even if you took an oath to defend the constitution it did not make you an officer) you could have directed a nearly successful beer hall putsch style coup and be elected president later. It's wild how close to fascism we've been this whole time and it's only taken a good hard flirt with it for people to realize it.
@@milhousevanhoutan9235 Yeah, that's exactly what it says.
It also means that those who DID engage in insurrection or rebellion cannot be kept from office if they had previously sworn no such oath (which of course would be the casde for 99% of the population).
BTW, section 3 arguably does NOT cover sedition--if by sedition you mean INCITING rebellion. You have to actually ENGAGE in that rebellion to be covered. That is, unfortunately, another possible loophole Trump might use.
@@yesyes3010 "Lock her up."
What is important to note about all this:
If the one side wasn't trying to defend their lord and savior, then they would have never argued that the president shouldn't be disqualified. No sane person believes that if there are bad actors, that they exclude the MOST IMPORTANT office when barring them. That's insane...
It's only now we have this defense shown BECAUSE they are protecting a person, not an ideal. Weaseling their way through words is what politicians do best, but it's still sad to see...
There is an argument to be made for positions where the people of the country vote and decide who is going to hold that position. If the law and the courts can be used by the government itself, to barr individuals from its positions, then it means that the state holds the power to deny its people from electing. It doesn't really matter what a candiate has done, if the majority of citizens wants to elect that candidate, isn't that the entire premise of the US? That its citizens holds the power to elect their representatives?
The way I see it is that it's insane to try to take away the people's right to vote for who they want. It's anti-democratic by definition.
@@justinthecode I love the way its seen as the courts taking away the rights for people to vote for who they want. Why don't people all vote for a 25 year old, non-native? could it be because there are certain clauses that automatically disqualify a person from running for president? If a person led, incited, supported an insurrection or gave aid and comfort to those who engaged in the insurrection, it is not the courts that have disqualified the potential candidate, but the candidates own actions.
@@4Q_Anyermama This is a great point. The difference I see is that the disqualifications based on age and nationality are 1) in the original constitution and 2) not based on whether the person has dissented to the government. The effort to get Trump off the ballot is purely a ploy to disenfranchise 80-90 million Americans based on the candidate's dissent to the ruling party.
Be careful what you wish for. If you start banning people from running for office, it will be used against people of your party, too.
If you want to prevent someone from holding an elected office, VOTE FOR THE PERSON THEY'RE RUNNING AGAINST. End of story.
If Trump is not an officer then he certainly cannot remove his case from Georgia to federal court.
If he is not an officer, then he shouldnt be one! Just prohibit him from ever joining in any office and he will be not guilty and everyone else will be safe from him.
This is why textual analysis of the constitution is stupid.
Our founding fathers were not literalists and didn't intend for us to argue the law based on a grammar choice. The meaning of the 14th amendment is clear
@@alexturnbackthearmy1907 what? Thats....not an option, and isn't how any of this works.
If he is?
@@alexturnbackthearmy1907 Safe From Him? Elaborate on whatever your trying to say here, all I read here is illogical bias......
Certified Trump hater here. I don't think he should be officially "disqualified" until he's actually CONVICTED of a felony, as this would set a dangerous precedent. Having said that, him running for office should NOT "pause" any criminal prosecution proceedings (or civil litigations for that matter); in fact, such trials should move him to the "head of the line" of "due process" in order to de-conflict from his eligibility to be on the ballot or from actually serving if he wins. And even IF he wins, if a conviction (especially for attempting to overthrow the government) is handed down post-election, "executive privilege" should not protect him from removal from office.
Insane that a convicted felon isn’t eligible to vote but can run for the highest position of our government.
Edit: I'm referring to convicted felons who are *currently* serving time.
What has he been convicted of again? Oh... that's right, nothing.
@@sueyourself5413 Technically the point remains, since it's a bit hypocritical to disallow one but not the other. It should either be neither is allowed or both allowed.
EDIT:
According to another poster you can vote in the US after the sentence is finished (it's when someone is on parole they cannot vote, according to said poster). Don't know if that's true, but if it is then what I wrote here was based on incorrect information and can be disregarded.
@sueyourself5413 when he is convicted. When. 91 felony charges. Do you think they are mistaken in charging him? You do know he will be convicted because he is guilty. He is a TRAITOR to the United States of America.
Don't put words in other peopels mouths
No one was talking about Trump.
Convicted of what?
It's amazing that their defense is not that he isn't guilty of a crime, it's that they want the laws to not apply to him.
That's why the US is the greatest country in the world. Even if everyone knows you did it, it doesn't matter if the law doesn't apply to you.
Their defense is both. Which is normal.
Also he's not guilty
@@Mandalor10 wrong
@@Mandalor10 Are you're basing your opinion on what was just stated then I have a question "HOW"?
I remember during the Birther nonsense during the Obama era realizing to myself that the qualifications for running for president are laid out in the constitution but the framers did not set up any mechanism or enforcement body to enforce the standards The Constitution says a candidate has to be at least 35 years old but if a 30 year old runs who is charged with preventing it? You heard a state Secretary of State say it’s not his job, so who’s job is it??
Good question
He's only half right. The state departments print the ballots for their states, so if they decide someone shouldn't be on them, they just don't put them on the ballot. That person can take them to court, where a judge will hear the arguments from both parties and make the final decision.
That's why Trump called the GA secretary of state when he (allegedly) wanted the election rigged in his favor. State departments control a great deal of voting.
I imagine they simply assumed that people wouldn't be stupid enough to require a court to say "not sure if I'm allowed to step in here" to decide these problems. They probably figured that someone filing the paperwork would just be told "no" when their minority was discovered.
That system has worked pretty well.
@@naverilllang In their defense, dictators staging coups against democratic governments isn't something that happened until Napoleon did it.
@@SableZardYT the Directory was not a democratic government, napoleon kicked them out of power and everyone breathed a sigh of relief
It is called “ The Office of the President.”
Senators, Congressmen, Presidents, mayors and governors all are said to hold office.
So how can anyone say that they are not officers of the government? That term, officer, is in the language to mean elected Officials.
See how that works?
I hate that the thing that could easily protect our democracy is potentially being stopped because the judicial system can't decide what a few words mean.
Protect our democracy by disqualifying someone from running. Please say that to yourself several times slowly if you need to until it clicks.
@@a-a-ron772 preventing fascists from running will only help our democracy in the long term. The mistake Germany did before the rise of the Nazis was being too lenient on them when they tried to do a coup.
@@a-a-ron772 ya if felons can't vote literal traitors shouldn't get to hold office
@@a-a-ron772 A lot of people are already disqualified from running. Only those who are citizens by birth are qualified, and for a reason. That being, we can't afford to have a president with possible divided loyalties. We can't afford to have a president who might commit treason. It's the same principle here, so unless you think we should get rid of that clause about birthplace, you can't seriously think an insurrectionist can be president either.
Only a lawyer would come up with quackery like an office holder is not an officer.
This is why people hate lawyers
@@rustygray5058 Oh? I thought they hated them because they cost insane amounts of money to defend basic rights that should be universal.
Or is it because they're the ones writings the laws and contracts that their services are required to decode?
Air Bud levels of quackery.
That is minor league quackery, major league quacks like "America's Mayor" Rudy G take it to a whole nother level by saying verbatim
" the truth is not the truth".
I feel like we really took for granted the 2-ish years that Trump was completely absent from the news...guess you don't know what you've got 'til its gone 😑
and what years would that be??
I love him for the excellent content. He's so entertaining. But then I think about the consequences if he actually got the presidency again.
Prior to 2015 😠
I don't recall two YEARS more like two months? Or so. Just the couple months after he did an actually illegal thing that apparently if he just didn't talk publicly for a couple months the rest of the Republicans could then say "insurrec- what? Huh? 2021? Jan? Huh? I don't understand. Anyway, vote for Trump!"
what 2 years? you mean before he announced his 1st run?
It absolutely does. Send him to prison now.
I bet the Supreme Court is having a field day; being forced to review whether or not trumps actions applies to certain laws
yeah lol, the conservative court has to decide whether a conservative is above the law, gee I have no idea which way they'll lean /s
@@alexrogers777 Maybe someone should give them all holidays to exclusive resorts in order to rule with the law?
@@alexrogers777 It's not just that it's a conservative court - it's that he put THREE of those conservative morons on the court (one a drunk party frat boy, another from an absolute religious cult) - they should absolutely recuse themselves from any case given that DIRECT connection.
But laws and reality matter little to these people, doing anything and everything to gain/hold on to power so they can continue to normalize the hateful, bigoted agenda of the right. Person above party. Party above country. Power above ALL ELSE.
The Supreme Court *should* know better than to get involved. That's a *major* separation of powers violation. They'd leave it in the legislative's hands.
...Hopefully
@@XXMatt0040XX The current Supreme Court seems to overreach massively when it comes to their own personal opinions. They couldn't wait to overthrow Roe V Wade despite multiple previous Supreme Court justices upholding it for example. Their particular brand of religion trumps precedence and rulings from people arguably more moral and educated than the current political appointees.
It truly is as if Democracy itself is on trial.
The Founders were correct when they worried about average americans voting for a king.
@@armorclasshero2103mainly the king part. The founders initially had President be a more moderate power, but ever since Andrew Jackson the office of President has become much more powerful, and thus much more risky.
Last I checked the US US a constitutional republic.
america mindset
@@armorclasshero2103 plato states in republic that democracy can only devolve into tyranny as it uses ignorance to rule.
It would be really backwards for the POTUS not to count as an officer, because that would mean that the law excludes the actor with the most power and the most autonomous use of it.
These are the same people who believe in the unitary executive theory, so it’s not a surprising mindset from them
@@murphyc97 Who else has any executive power under the Constitution?
I find it concerning that people would attempt to say that the specific mention of the President and Vice-President somehow doesn't mean they are included in this exemption simply because of the use of the word "officer" when taking the oath. I think the intent of the amendment is clear that it should include anyone who holds that position. Otherwise, they would not have been specifically mentioned, and would have likely had their own separate clause. The spirit of the amendment is to prevent insurrectionists from holding any office of power in government.
This is where the law gets to be so frustrating, at least for those of us who do not practice it.
The intent of the 14th amendment was made clear at its inception: people who previously had sworn loyalty to the US who then went on to participate in insurrection et al should not be allowed to hold office again. AND THAT IS EMINENTLY PRACTICAL. Of COURSE you wouldn't want someone who tried to overthrow the government to be given a place IN IT. I know that the law is a game of language, I get that, but . . . dammit! Practicality. Common sense. And this ban should be applied with GREATER stringency the more power the office in question wields! NOT LESS! The FIRST office that an insurrectionist should be barred from holding is that of PRESIDENT! DUH!!!!!!
Trump's mob has been consigned to the courts, but those in the highest positions are STILL awaiting the legal fallout from their actions in planning and directing the insurrection. And while we wait, men who are in positions to do great damage are not only escaping justice for crimes they have already committed, but they are left free to seek advancement which will give them greater power to repeat their crimes to greater effect.
In simple terms, no one who hates this country so much that they would overthrow it should be allowed to RUN it. A CHILD could tell us that. Alas, it seems, the law cannot.
He did say he could get away with murder.
The jab at Florida's education system was soooooo perfect. They sure arent taught those things about history now. Thanks, pragerU
The 1619 project isn't real history
@fillerbunnyninjashark271 And the proof of this is?
I think this is going to depend on what the state secretaries of state and one or two federal courts decide. Loyalist Republicans will argue that "oh this is a Civil War thing, it's clearly obsolete", while a fair number of everyone else will likely argue that telling a bunch of people to march to Congress and "fight like hell" is well in line with inciting an insurrection and the 14th should apply.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if/when this goes to SCOTUS, the conservatives will probably interpret the 14th narrowly, saying that we shouldn't bar people from running for "political" reasons, we should allow anyone who is eligible to run, blah blah blah, ignore all the times we ruled for the wealthy and powerful and against everyone else, oh no our legitimacy is in the toilet again, I wonder why.
This case illustrates yet again why so much about our democracy and the Constitution is "protected" by the honor system. If someone doesn't care about the appearance of doing the right thing, they can easily rip apart a lot of important stuff, and that's exactly what Donald did in his tenure, _and this is the man the Republican Party is trying to protect._
If this doesn't tell everyone that the GOP must not be allowed to govern, nothing will.
He also still thinks he won the last election...which would then disqualify him under 22nd... ;)
What gets me is that I'm positive the GoP could find a candidate that could act like trump politically while not wiping their butt with the laws.
It can't possibly be that hard to find someone who will tell China to shove it and generally lean away from wars and focus more on mainland US security and economy. That sounds like the points they liked about him politically. I don't know why they also require the side show that comes along with Trump. Well... I mean at this point it's just my team good, hahaha you're so mad I love it. Not sure there is anything else really behind his support.
Great point! Additionally, I might be completely wrong but I feel like the "it's an old obsolete law" argument might shoot them in the foot, because a legitimate argument can then be made about any old laws, like the 1st & 2nd amendment. If the 14th amendment is an outdated product of its time then the same could be said of the 2nd amendment when muskets were still a thing!
@@bac1308 They could certainly find a candidate like this. The problem is they created a scenario where Trump basically runs the party. They have to let Trump in the primary and go with him if he wins. I'm interested what would happen if he loses the primary and still runs. The GOP might just be screwed and have to back him anyway. Probably the best thing that could happen for the GOP is if Trump is ruled ineligible for the presidency. Whether they see that or not.
I'd argue the Civil War is still going one, albeit as a Kelvin-level cold war, considering the goons with the Confederate battle flags running around the halls of the Capitol Building on Jan. 6h 2021.
Apparently, while the Supreme Court feels he couldn't hold office, but that it wouldn't stop him from running for that office.. which seems insane to me. If you can't hold the office you are running for, you can't run for it because you aren't a true candidate. This isn't about Trump, it's about anyone in that position. If you can't actually ever accept the position without breaking the law, then you shouldn't nominate yourself for that job.
The big problem is that the same people responsible for holding Trump accountable to anything are the same people who are determined to get him elected. And these people have proved time and time again that hypocrisy is not an obstacle to their goals.
you mean like how the left ignores the crimes the bidens have done? republicans were calling him out before trump won in 2016. Hunter's laptop wasnt a "right wing conspiracy" just like Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton kept saying all that stuff was made up against her husband. Anifa isnt a myth, that was another one. the same people that are hell bent on taking down trump defend a president you sniffs kids and admitted to quid pro quo on TV. but those stories dont have as much energy as "orange man bad"
If you were shown footage of Joe Biden making molesting contact with a child in the US Capitol, would you change your view of his eligibility for the office of president?
Hello pot. Meet kettle.
Nor moral decency.
Also doesn't help that that people trying to prosecute Trump are the same people serving the current administration, that wants to stay in power and keep the other guy off the ballot.
Wait, so we literally have record of a conversation between two of the original authors of the clause wherein they discuss whether the President and Vice President are covered under the language of “officer”, and they agree that they are, and there is still somehow debate about what was intended? WTF?
Originalists when originalism would be bad for the conservatives suddenly don't care about the original intent.
No, The plain meaning rule should suffice (assuming US courts have such a rule). I mention that because Congress is a collegial body. The author of a clause is not the ,member of Congress who drafted it (if only because many clauses have multiple authors thanks to amendments; and section 3 is a case in point: it had more than one author) but Congress as a whole.
I think Trump's presidency really highlighted that the presidency needs more checks and balances for accountability.
I'd say that voters need more accountability. Many voters across the country would still vote for him even though they know he is a criminal and an insurrectionist.
@kingace6186 oh I mean that the presidency needs to be held to a higher standard. None of this "can't be convicted while a sitting president nonsense".
@@TheIronDonkeyyeah but that’s a real flimsy justice department policy. Really they need to burn that policy.
@Chuckakhan absolutely. In trying to not get a monarchy, America ended up with some crazy rules for their leader.
Most former POTUS probably deserve getting locked up but the Donald definitely made an especially convincing case.
Regarding the whole issue of standing - wasn't the Federal Court system explicitly used to enforce the 14th Amendment during the post-Civil War era? If they possessed standing then, why wouldn't they now?
For that matter, if nobody has the authority to investigate a candidate's qualifications, how exactly would an unqualified candidate be disqualified? Can a blatantly unqualified candidate who was, like, born in Cyprus or something just run for President of the United States and argue nobody has standing to challenge their qualifications even though everyone knows they aren't qualified? Why would there be a law if no one can enforce it?
It's disquisting that they go after political opponents like this. You know who else does that? Russia.
@Brasswatchman: "wasn't the Federal Court system explicitly used to enforce the 14th Amendment during the post-Civil War era"
Yes and no. Legal Eagle is only telling part of the story in this video. In particular he makes it seem as if the first usage of section 3 was in the First Enforcement Act. In reality, section 3 was first used in sections 5 & 6 of the First Reconstruction Act of 1867 before the 14th amendment had even been ratified. By so doing Congress was (in essence) passing both a Bill of Attainder AND an Ex Post Facto law (which in turn was arguably unconstitutional as per section 9 of article 1 of the Constitution). Those Reconstruction Act provisions in turn were enforced not by any court of law but by the US Army using powers granted to them by that (and the other) Reconstruction Acts.
It wasn't until that 1870 Act was passed that Congress finally started using the courts to handle section 3.
That Reconstruction Act usage, however, is why the 1872 Amnesty Act exists. For it turns out that those Reconstruction Acts had swept up more than Confederacy synpathisers. They had also swept up Union supporters as well. Thousands upon thousands of them. Before the 1872 Act was passed Congress was having to periodically pass amnesty Act after amnesty Act to get them off the hook, listing each person by name. Eventually, Congress seems to have gotten tired of that so it passed the 1872 Act, which is called the General Amnesty Act for that reason: it forgave pretty much everybody. (And even after that 1872 Act Congress found it had to keep passing a few more every so often.)
@@yesyes3010 I suppose you'd know, wouldn't you? How's St. Petersburg at this time of year?
I don't understand how the most simple answer is never said...
If it's invoked once, it's going to invoked over and over, it's political mutually assured destruction.
Theres a big issue here. The 14th amendment specially points out senators as "officers" and last time i checked.. Senators are actually voted in so the claim that a president is not "an officer" because of the fact that hes voted is contradicting the amendment.
The 14th amendment doesn't point out senators as officers, it specifically lists senators because they are not officers. If senators were officers there would be no need to list them separately.
I was going to ask about that. It makes no sense.
@@a-a-ron772does it say that explicitly? That senators are not officers because they are elected? You assume they are listed because they would not be otherwise included, but the law is allowed to have redundant definitions so long as they do not contradict themselves. Plus there is the record of this exact problem being brought up at the time this amendment was drafted and the concerns of president not being an officer were dismissed.
@@a-a-ron772 EXACTLY CORRECT!!! Article I, Sec. 6: "No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, BE APPOINTED TO ANY CIVIL OFFICE under the authority of the United States, .... and no person HOLDING ANY OFFICE UNDER THE UNITED STATES, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office." For all of the idiots trying to hold Trump accountable under Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment, why can't they read THE FIRST DAMN ARTICLE of the Constitution itself to find out that "CIVIL OFFICERS" and "OFFICES" don't apply to the ONLY FOUR ELECTED offices in the ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT??!!!? What the hell is wrong with people?
@HatsuneSquidward yes, officers are the different appointed heads of the departments such as secretary of defense.
I've seen this claim that there were these discussions at the time and they concluded that the president should be included. I can only find the claims of the discussion and not the actual discussion. Who was in the discussion? Did everyone agree? Did the states know that they intended for the president to be included when they voted for the amendment to be passed?
It is remarkable that there are parts of the US Constitution, the highest law in the land, that can be argued around and be deemed to be un-enforceable.
The framers intended those parts to be made up as it went along and adapted to as times change, like successful countries do. They didn't foresee morons like John Roberts thinking they possessed some esoteric wisdom that should be applied to all relevant situations 250 years down the line. History repeatedly shows that countries that do not adapt with the times wither and die. The framers understood this. Constitutional "originalists" do not.
Everything that has not been legally tested can be argued about, and even stuff that has been legally tested can be argued about, especially when you have a Supreme Court that no longer cares about precedent. Democracy is always an ongoing conversation, there’s very little that would ever be considered “permanently settled”
like the freedom of speech merrick garland and co. is trying to argue away from a PRESIDENT donald trump?
That's not really the right way to think about it. The US holds the constitution as ultimately enforceable - that is, it cannot be questioned. Unfortunately its also pretty vague in a lot of ways (because it was never intended to be forever held on high as a holy text) so while everyone agrees that the constitution cannot be violated, its become common practice to try and weasel around the constitution by trying to convince the court to interpreting its vagarities in their favor. Technically the constitution is "enforced", its just not necessarily enforced in a way that the entirety of the population agrees with.
In principle this is supposed to be figured out by SCOTUS - they're tasked with interpreting the constitution. But SCOTUS justices are just as human as anyone else. They can be biased. They can change their minds. They can just be flat out wrong. What they can't do is read the minds of a bunch of old white dudes who have been dead for a couple of centuries at this point. Their interpretations are opinions just like anyone else'. The difference being that their opinions have the force of law, so we're supposed to trust that they're doing the due diligence to think about a question from all angles and provide a well-conceived, impartial opinion rather than ruling via hot takes.
That trust has been waning the past couple years following the appointment of Barret - primarily the "impartial" aspect given both the political lopsidedness that introduced as well as the mockery both her and Kavanaugh before her made of their respective Senate confirmation hearings. But it apparently hasn't waned enough for the Biden administration to risk changing the court makeup so we're stuck with it for now.
As someone who holds Trump in all due contempt, I still want the threshold for banning people from office to be very high, because once you set a precedent you're stuck with it. And next time it'll be a good guy banned for having, say, voted for Bernie Sanders or donated to an unpopular charity.
The fact that Americans might still vote for him, after he attempted a coup, is what really boggles the mind.
A very large percentage of them aren't too bright and have been raised in dogmatic belief (christian) households.
They also tend to conflate unfounded arrogance with valid confidence, and since Trump is a lump of unfounded arrogance on legs... Yeah.
As an Australian, I find it absolutely mind-blowing. What has happened to them? 😭
@@ArensVT Cults have a tendency to make people act completely irrationally. And we have a very hard time addressing cults.
@@ladeao1552 that's a good point
Southerners elected/tolerated leaders precisely for the purpose of a coup, and those results also boggle the mind.
This is why I could never be a lawyer. The argument of "this doesn't apply to the president because they aren't an officer" is so frustratingly dumb. They heavily imply if not direct state section 3 applies to the president during the adoption proceedings. And the president holds an office, so they therefore must be an officer. The Legal precedent of an officer must be appointed to be an officer is so stupid. I don't like people playing with words to wriggle out of things; it leads to a certain lawlessness if we play with definitions like that
It's also plainly ridiculous when considered as a whole, right?
So when they write the 14th amendment, they wanted to prevent the confederates and their allies from having any power, to prevent them from reversing everything...
Do people seriously think that they thought "well, can't have them being a congressperson, can't have them being any sort of official... But you know what? The highest office in the land? Yeah, they're fine to go for the presidency."
It's clearly not what was intended
It does not make sense that the president can run after trying to overthrow the government but a representative can't.
At no point did trump as president make any statements eluding to trying to overthrow the government he stated to go Protest peacefully and in a non violent fashion that's not an insurrection much less inciting one. Your statement is either wilfully ignorant, or in simple denial if factual evidence. I don't like Trump, however one must look at all the known facts. Bidens a racist and a known criminal.
Be careful what you wish for. If you start banning people from running for office, it will be used against people of your party, too.
If you want to prevent someone from holding an elected office, VOTE FOR THE PERSON THEY'RE RUNNING AGAINST. End of story.
No president ever tried to over throw the government
Over throw the government 🤣
Don't worry no one's tried to overthrow the government in recent times
So basically what they're implying is the 14th amendment applies to everyone except the President.
However, I think the lawyers will be able to show that if the writers of the 14th did not want it to apply to President, they would have written that.
which if you know our history, the founders feared executive power most of all (we did fight a war over it)
@@relaxedsack1263which war?
@@MrGamelover23 the revolutionary war. We didn't want a king, and if a president is unaccountable, he's just a king.
And VP, no?
Crazy that "person who opposed the USA government" isn't enough of a disqualification, and that it must be an officer.
Right that crazy smh
I would say if that was in the constitution it is a bit to broad of a statement. You could spin nearly anyone into being disqualified.
If that were the case though, then anyone who ever even protested the US government would be barred from office, and that would be terrible for our freedoms
@@sussyscylla3414They need to elaborate more on why the case was dismissed
@@ashhamrick12They need to elaborate more on while the case Was dismissed simply saying that the person isn't Qualified enough it's not fair rights
He certainly didn't STOP the ppl he told to go march on Congress. Why didn't he call in the National Guard? ..... think that applies as "Aiding"
They ware peaceful
Mainly
There's been a lot of time between the drafting of section 3 and now, but one thing that has not changed, is that legal scholars and professionals tend to be specific. If the drafters of section 3 meant for a particular official to be exempt from the strictures of section 3, the office they hold would have been named. Since section 3 of the 14th amendment does not, in plain and explicit language, state something to the clear effect of "this section does not apply to people holding the office of The President of the United States of America" then it should be pretty obvious, even to a navel gazing technocrat of an originalist, that no such exemption applies.
+1, and then there's the debating point that Devin tells us about when the Amendment was being considered in the Senate: 15:52. The Senators accepted that the Presidency was included by the plain language.
It's disquisting that they go after political opponents like this. You know who else does that? Russia.
@@yesyes3010 Ah, you've arrived. I've been expecting you. I was wondering when some enterprising drooler would turn up, to draw false equivalence between prosecuting people who publicly, visibly, and on national television, commit serious crimes against a nation and its people, and Russia, a nation in which genuine, normal and just opposition to the government can land a person in prison from their teen age until their death.
All I have to say to you, is that if you can't even spell the word disgusting, you aren't ready to use it in a sentence.
@@peteredwards2318 well, english is not my first language, but I hope even someone like you can understand my message.
I know a male child like you are more interrested in going after the man instead of the ball, but I'm curious anyways, eventhough I know you most likely can answer a basic quistion purely reagrding the substance, but I will try anayways.
Excatly which serious crimes do you think Donald Trump has commited?
"The 14th Amendment could have been written more clearly..."
That's the case for quite a lot of amendments.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."
Yes, the President of the United States is considered an officer. In fact, the President is the highest-ranking officer in the executive branch of the federal government. According to the U.S. Constitution, the President is the "Commander in Chief" of the armed forces and holds various executive powers and responsibilities. The term "officer" can apply to individuals who hold a position of authority or responsibility within a government or organization, and in this case, the President certainly qualifies as such an officer, specifically as the chief executive officer of the nation.
If the 14th doesn’t bar him from office in every state then the constitution can be argued to not apply to every state.
Making the whole thing defunct as a federal document
Correct. Not that hasn't been tried over and over again, but you know, the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) stops that every single time.
Bar him for what exactly? If the 14th doesn't bar the leaders of the 2020 BLM insurrection, why are we even discussing it?
@@Jane-oz7pp that was done long ago, but Democrats have made sure to prevent that document from returning
@@timl9724Genuine question, not a challenge: are any leaders of the 2020 riots top candidates running for president? I’m fairly uneducated on this topic.
In an actual 1st World Country that had a functional judicial system, the former guy would have been in jail on January 7th. It's pathetic how long this is taking. I have zero faith that he will ever see a prison cell.
Correct.
Are you saying the greatest and most powerful country in the world isn't a 1st world country with a fair and just judicial system? You must hate America 😂
@@echidnabladeyes, the US is clearly a mess. Lots of firepower, really badly written laws
oh he'll see a prison cell alright, it just won't be until he dies.
@@echidnabladeAmerica is certainly the greatest in terms of “richest, most exceptional, most influential, most powerful”, but NOT in terms of “best at everything”. Our legal and political system has clearly failed repeatedly under the pressure of Trump and the Republicans and their total abandonment of good faith. That’s without even getting into the two-tier system where punishments only reliably apply to poor people. Trump basically committed the most serious crime possible on live TV and gave a running commentary confirming his guilt, and there were zero consequences. Any other person would have been jailed pending trial before the insurrection even dispersed.
The written law comes in conflict with "common sense" so many times, just shows how flawed the law really is.
The purpose of the law is to make things easier and life fairer-if a law isn’t doing that, then it’s a bad law
The laws are written like this intentionally so that the enforcers can pick and choose whoever they want to arrest and to let off easy. We've been a police state for a long, long time now - it's just harder for white people to notice.
The law isn't flawed though. It's fair. Did Trump really engage in an insurrection? He wasn't present so, not really. Was it really an insurrection? Most legal analysis says no.
@@warlordofbritannia "The purpose of the law is to make things easier and life fairer"
No, the purpose of the law is to define the standards that we, as a society, feel that people should live by. Those standards might not be easy and it's certainly arguable whether they're fair: a communist would argue that privately owned businesses are unfair; a business owner would argue that it's unfair for the communists to confiscate their business.
@@joemcmurtrey1
Amazing, literally every single thing you just said was wrong.
When does Congress hold the vote?
If one person can be convicted of violating the 14th Amendment for participating in an insurrection, anyone else who participated in that insurrection should also be disqualified from ever holding any office. Either that, or the American legal system is far beyond dysfunctional.
But you'd have to prove they were part of the insurrection in some manner. Imagine somebody is barred from office because they were seen in the crowd when it was outside the Capitol, but when things escalated and the crowd actually started trying to break into it, they left and went home. Would that be a just outcome?
It only applies if they had taken an oath to defend the constitution.
@@jestermarcusTo the Democratic Party, it would.
you are right, the American legal system is far beyond dysfunctional
That’s why we have a Congress although right now it may be questionable
Congress is supposed to be updating the constitution!
Such as don’t pee outside
The notion that the law would protect a person, who had taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, then violated that oath by conspiring to attack Congress/prevent the peaceful transfer of power, is ridiculous. Such persons could never be trusted to uphold democracy.
It's disquisting that they go after political opponents like this. You know who else does that? Russia.
@@yesyes3010I don't think you know Russian politics very well. Rarely do the laws or courts come into play. Unless Trump dies of polonium poisoning or disappears under mysterious circumstances it's not at all the same. But actually thinking through responses is hard when you can just compare people to Trump's second favorite dictator.
@@yesyes3010 its not about going after political opponents tho, its because he very publicly created an insurrection. You of course know that though, you're just playing politics. Besides, you can't honestly tell me republicans wouldn't do the same if a democrat had committed Jan 6th
@@yesyes3010 if it really was about going after political opponents then why aren't there any efforts to remove DeSantis, Vivek or literally any other conservative candidate hmmmmm
Also: "disquisting"
@@alexrogers777 for the same reason that it was only Tucker Carlson that got removed from fox news, and not Sean Hanity or Lindsey Ingram. Currently, they are not a threat.
"The United States is a nation of laws - badly written and randomly enforced"
-Frank Zappa
Though the biggest problem we're facing today is that half the voting populace appears to at least be favorable to the idea that the USA is supposed to be a white Christian nation, or find that idea to be secondary to, say, low taxes and gasoline prices. If ex-president Donnie had tried this in 1980, when America was significantly more white and nearly all Christian, my guess is he'd be in the penitentiary, assuming he was even elected in the first place.
Religiosity in the USA is in retreat, with each successive generation falling more into non-Christian faiths or (more worrisome to many believers), atheists, agnostics, or "nones". While the mean age in the USA is 38, many brands of Christianity (including evangelical and Catholic) are in upper half of their fifth decade.
At any rate, I think anyone who incites a riot that proceeds to trash the capitol shouldn't be president, yet here we are.
I did not realize until I was deconstructing Christianity, but it really is more about Reagan and Trump that it is about Jesus. One of many epiphanies I had was when I tried to find out which politician corrupted Christianity.... it wasn't a republican, it was a Caesar. And that's how I got stuck thinking about the Roman Empire.
Zappa was taken from us too soon. Would've been interesting to hear his take on the last couple of years.
Israel is a nation of laws too. Perhaps it would be more appropriate? It's an offer, I hear it's great, they tell me every time they get the chance.
I just don't really buy this argument when the Evangelicals were pro-Trump
He's disqualified
"hold any office, civil or military" Whether or not it is an "officer", he held the Presidency and as you noted it is repeatedly called an "office". It is also the commander in chief of the military. Saying the president is not an officer, or did not hold an office, of the government is a very odd. argument.
Enumerating the Congress and Electors could be that they are not officers. Officers of the government being in the executive branch. Representatives and Senators have no power themselves and can only act as a corporate body.
I find it extremely worrying that a disqualification clause needs to exist, as that implies that people will otherwise willingly vote for someone demonstrably unfit for office.
I mean…they will. They do.
That’s why it’s there.
Unfortunately, it's been proven time and again that they absolutely will.
I think the idea is that it's legally elegant for there to not be a disqualification clause. Of course, the last decade has shown me that elegance is not a very good enforcer of justice
This clause exists because half the country went into open rebellion. And would have happily elected outright seditionists post-war if allowed.
Let's not forget that, while considering the second impeachment, each house of Congress found by a simple majority that the Barking Pumpkin did commit insurrection. Thus one of the three branches of government has already issued its verdict.
It took me a moment to understand what „Barking Pumpkin“ meant, so, well played.
You guys have sued rivers, ffs.
'the Barking Pumpkin' 🤣
@@geekychik86 (That was also the name of Frank Zappa's record label.)
Impeachment isn’t a verdict. It’s the equivalent of an indictment.
@@mr.cheese8604 Impeachment is a process; the verdict here was a finding of insurrection that nonetheless did not result in removal from office.
The individuals did not allow the former President or Vice President of the Confederate States of America. This should be self evident as the 14th @amendment has been used since the civil war therefore it was not specifically wrote exclusively for the Civil War, otherwise after the last Civil War insurrectionist died the 14th Amendment would have been stricken from the Amendments as no other individual would ever fall under this specific amendment. Just like every other amendment including the right to free speech would only be valid until the last member of the founding government bodies died, thereby expunging every Amendment once the people alive at the time of passing would not currently apply to any future generations.
Out of curiosity, does the Constitution have rules about HOW to disqualify a 34.5 year old from running, or does the law simply say that they aren't qualified and states just bar the youngster from the ballot because of it?
We've had 155 years to figure out how to implement this. It just should not be this hard! It's only hard because people want to make it hard. Just because they've never had to consider this stipulation before, doesn't mean it didn't exist, nor does it mean it's less official. My questions is will the officers in these states faithfully uphold the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Because no one should have to be psychic and predict that people would suddenly forget how to use dictionaries 150 later in order to write an Amendment the Constitution.
This was my thought too. There must be *someone* that decides if a candidate meets all the requirements to be candidate. If not the courts, then who?
I seem to remember a great deal of hot air being blown over whether Barack Obama was disqualified on the basis of not being a natural-born citizen. What was the proposal to disqualify him in the event that that would have been proved?
@@MagicScientist "There must be someone that decides if a candidate meets all the requirements to be candidate."
Like a lot of things spelled out in the Constitution and laws, historically it has largely been honor system. Everyone agreed what the rules said, and those people excluded by the rules just didn't try to break them.
Now we have a whole population of self-entitled narcissists who have never been held accountable for anything in their lives, and believe the rules don't apply to them. So they go ahead and do what they want regardless of what the rules say. Since no one knows how to stop them, then the rules become worthless.
@@MagicScientist The answer is largely the Secretaries of State of each State are responsible for assessing qualifications. Which is why the Minn. Sec of State is a mewling coward because he's literally saying he won't do his job.
@@milhousevanhoutan9235 so then doesn't that mean that the Secretary of State in Minn. is not faithfully discharging their duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States, particularly the 14th Amendment, section 3?
Lawyers will argue "no", and then wonder why people continue to lose respect for them with every passing day.
*shitty lawyers
Normal lawyers „just“ get mowed down in the crossfire.
I mean lawyers are pos...nothing new here
If the President isn't an officer of the US, wtf are we even doing ... plain language should prevail here.
Lawyers live and die by parsing words. No other profession has mangled the English language as much as the law has.
The fact that trump is still in the news is just sad
no amzaing of how much of a criminal he is
You can thank the liberal media for that
this is liberal media? @@thndr_5468
@@thndr_5468fox talk about him daily. Are they liberal now?
I mean, while I agree with the sentiment, the guy is hard to leave to his own devices. I'm just as sick of hearing about him as the next guy, and I know he loves seeing his name in the headlines, but he keeps doing newsworthy things.
However, if the ex-president commits a crime, the people should know, especially if he committed them during his term in office.
Plus, he's running for office again, so the news *should* report on that, even if he's running in bad faith just to save his own ass from living the rest of his short life in prison. They should be focusing on the other candidates equally, so not to king-make anyone (like they did with Donnie in the run-up to the 2016 election). No publicity is bad publicity, ya know?
Colorado Supreme Court enters the chat....
Since members of the confederacy were ousted from Congress by this law, how do we not know how to enforce it clearly?
Because he is a republican and the idiots in the Republican Party will ignore anything that more extreme republicans do.
Look at Texas. The exact same thing is happening but on a state scale. Crime committed by high ranking republican - general consensus is that he is rotten and should be removed from office - “that’s politically motivated so he is exempt from the law”
They were removed before the civil war
Probably because it hasnt been needed since
Because of arguments over what the definition of the word "is" is.
Each house of congress is the judge of its members' qualifications. There is no clear judge of the qualifications for other offices other than the courts by default.
I definitely understand the desire to bar someone from holding office if they had previously held an office and engaged in activity breaking their oath. That being said, I don't understand why the Office of the POTUS would be excepted from that rule. It's basically saying, "We don't want insurrectionist former officers to hold future office, unless they were in the highest and most powerful office, in which case it's OK if they want to hold that office again."
„What’s the worst that could happen?“
Meanwhile, people with more than two braincells: 😶
Perhaps they felt it was unfathomable for the president to try to overthrow his own countrys government
Which is pretty funny, since the founders knew full well what a *king* was
It's disquisting that they go after political opponents like this. You know who else does that? Russia.
@@yesyes3010 I'm really just commenting on the ambiguity of the law or the strangeness of exempting the highest office of the country from that law. That being said, a convicted criminal would be more than merely a "political opponent". Also, if this were Russia, everyone who participated in Jan 6 would have fallen out of a window or died from a mysterious heart attack by now.
The fact that it's even in question bothers me to no end. Why do we literally watch people commit crimes but only pick and chose who is punished
Because it's based on class. Poor people get tormented for the rest of their lives even by just stealing food. Meanwhile, rich bastards bribe courts and receive special treatment.
Well generally the US has this thing called due process and presumption of innocence so it isn't very popular in the US to legally bar people based on unproven alligations...
@@AlbatrossCommando disqualify, not bar. Disqualification happens because the person doesn't meet the requirements, being too young, not born in the USA, aiding an insurrection. Barring someone would be an external agency actively preventing someone who met the requirements from running...
Not gonna lie, I was buying the “President isn’t an Officer of the United States” argument, until you brought up the originalist argument and now it seems pretty clear to me.
The Minnesota Sec of State also pointed out that state law gives citizens there the right to bring cases to disqualify candidates... which is exactly what is happening now. I think he was basically saying "please make me disqualify Trump" ;)
He shouldn't be.
If I had half of the criminal charges he had, I never be able to get a job again.
True. If i were to be guilty of a quarter, FSB will have me in their basement the moment charges were made. Russia is not best country in the world, but if you were accused of such things with proof, then no lawyer will save you. Luckily you can avoid such accusations as forever president of russia.
Charges =/= convictions though.
@@megauser8512 don't care
Run for public office.......
@@megauser8512 In a court of public opinion possibly..... Is your comment pure Bias or what
Pro tip: if the question is whether a given law applies to Donald Trump, the answer is, always and everywhere, a resounding "No."
The US justice system has been fairly unanimous on that point.
the left gets to traffic kids, so at least the democrats get something.
I recently stumbled across this channel. And I absolutely love it. Real lawyers, talking about actual law?!! Yes, please.
If it does not bar trump from office then we might as well rip it up because it is meaningless
Exactly
I agree, we need a new Constitution while we're at it :)
It turns out that the USA got rid of a king but put themselves in a position where they might have a dictator for life instead.
Roman Republic: “First time?”
I guess you could say the 14th ammendment is a trump card
Oh yur funny
You madman
Best joke of the comment section award
😎 YEEEEEEAAAAAHHHHHHHH
🏅
Your videos deconstructing tough legal issues are always amazing.