As a Canadian, I value civility. As a keen observer of American political discourse for 6 decades, I despair that it has fallen so far so fast among our southern neighbours. That is why it is reassuring to watch this discussion.
President Kennedy referred himself as an officer: “Victory has a hundred fathers, but defeat is an orphan… I am the responsible officer of the government.”
The basis of this conversation, is the constitution. Your logic (even though admirable) is based on the Trumps words. I’m sorry it’s not based on the constitution. It’s rather subjective.
In the NY hush money case coming up, Trump argued in a pretrial motion that he was an officer and was immune from prosecution and the case should be moved to a Federal court. The judge agreed he was an officer, but still said he was acting outside the outer boundaries of his office as it was election and campaigning activities and those are not within the scope of presidential duties. Immunity denied removal to Fedral court denied. But he was declared an officer in that pretrial motion by the judge.
anyone can hold an office without being an officer. the navy is a prime example. regardless of rank, if you hold the command of a ship you're the captain of the ship. an officer.
If the attack on the Capitol was, indeed, an "insurrection" for purposes of applying the Sec. 3 penalty of disqualification from office, it was an illegal act that ended on the very day it began. And whether Trump "engaged in it" or merely gave it "aid and comfort," his culpability ends with an insurrection that was only "active" in terms of planning and execution. No criminal act or civil liability enjoys perpetuity. He cannot be held liable TODAY for promising to grant pardons if elected or characterizing convicted criminals as "hostages," however stupid that characterization may be. Statutes of limitations still exist.
@@LarryK-jg6iwPresident isn't listed in the 14th section 3. The remedy is to not hold office but it says nothing is removal from ballots. What's your opinion about local state judges ruling on federal election matters instead of federal courts where the violation occurred?
@@LarryK-jg6iw FEDERAL CRIMES WITH NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS Federal capital crimes, including violent crimes or those that can be punished by the death penalty, have unlimited time to bring charges. Examples of federal crimes include: Capital murder, including genocide, murder committed in a federal building, or committed during a drug trafficking crime. Civil rights offenses resulting in death Espionage Murder of a foreign official, member of Congress, Supreme Court Justice, federal judge, or federal law enforcement officer Treason Sex offenses in which the victim is a minor
@@Robert-fs6ge "It’s important to note that an individual can be charged at both the state and federal level for the same crimes. Often, the state will begin the investigation or begin prosecution and then the federal courts will take over the crime or prosecute it after the state crimes have been prosecuted."
@@trudy5963 I understand that and it's been pointed out. However congress has not established that civil case law is a legal standard for removal of a candidate because of the 14th section 3. Given the right to due process before a privilege can be revoked, the only current legal standard is 13USC2383 which is a criminal code. Congress enforces insurrection law by appropriate legislation and it's not been determined by congress that 13USC2383 isn't the only legal mechanism. The 14th section 3 doesn't say conviction is required because guilt is not assumed.
Interpretation of the Constitution isn't really semantics. The rule followed by the Judiciary Branch of our government for decades is that unless the language is ambiguous then nothing shall be inferred. You go with the plain meaning of the words as written.
Indeed. The US constitution is now a nightmare. It assumed rational and wise electors electing wise people. It's now got party politics, Twitter, MAGA and Trump. Its stuck trying to interpret something vague drafted centuries ago - rather than the UK system where Parliament writes laws to match changing need and political structures. And it succeeds in having two parts of the US legislature with the power to actually produce deadlock and nothing done and a President who often has no majority to do anything . The UKs PM has to have a majority in the legislature. And the second chambermaid, by contrast, has no say in spending, and can only delay legislation it thinks need changes. The US actually bestows King like powers , like commanding the armed forces , on an active politician - which the UK avoids by making the armed services crown servants able to ignore crazy orders as they work for a monarch not the PM . And the current UScmess - with a grid kocked legislature, gerrymandered seats - because there is no independent neutral body to decide boundaries , and the absurdity of S Dakota having the same Senate representation as California - cant be sorted out - as the requirements for constitutional change were designed for 13 similar states, and are unachievable given the interests that prefer the status quo. Its dragging America down. And there seems no way to make the necessary changes.
Fascinating discussion. 03:06 - It's run FOR office, not FROM office. Oops. 13:26 - Correct, Michael: The President doesn't appoint or commission himself. Why? Because WE THE PEOPLE appoint and commission the nominee or candidate according to elections spelled out in our United States Constitution and the laws of our country; to thereby become the Chief Executive OFFICER of the highest OFFICE in our land, who takes an Oath of OFFICE at the inauguration to SUPPORT the U.S. by preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United States of America, who then works out of the Oval OFFICE. Really? States have Secretaries of State who ultimately are empowered to allow a nominee or candidate to be on the States' ballots and are obligated to obey Section 3 of the 14th Amendment among the other criteria. Agreed. Judge Chutkan's case that's being held up by Trump's claim that he is immune from his clear and obvious crimes and violations of his Oath of OFFICE will happen in a few months. He's most likely to be found guilty. Trump would have been a good citizen to have done what Al Gore did: concede gracefully! What a disgusting shame Trump is. WE THE PEOPLE owe Donald John Trump a debt of gratitude for strengthening our Federal Constitutional Democratic Republic against fascist authoritarianism and dictatorship! Let US reward him with a nice orange jumpsuit!
I find it hard to wrap my mind around the idea that if a congressman or senator was found guilty of insurrection he/she would unworthy of holding office ever again but could run for president.
No, being CONVICTED of insurrection, you cannot hold any office in government. The difference with Trump is that he has NEVER been convicted of insurrection. You can't place a criminal label on anyone who has not been tried and found guilty. The senate tried in the 2nd impeachment, but charges were acquitted, meaning no criminal label.
@@Robert-fs6ge I Believe this person is referencing Donald Trump's legal defense for disqualification which rests in part on the absurd notion that the president is not an "officer" of the United States. I don't know if it's in the legal defense, but I know Trump has argued publicly that he never took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution which is just bonkers.
@@Robert-fs6ge you take an oath of OFFICE as president. You occupy the OFFICE of the president. You occupy the OFFICE for 4 year terms. The interpretation that the president is not an officer is incompatible with the plain text of the Constitution, and the intent of the authors. Donald Trump himself successfully argued in K&D LLC v. Trump Old Post Office that the president was an "officer", and that was the grounds with which he removed the suit. The Colorado supreme Court has already rejected the argument that there is a meaningful distinction between "support" and "preserve, protect and defend."
@@blitz8425 The question of whether a president is an officer is interesting and I see both sides. He's called chief executive officer and there's the office of the president. On the other hand president is the executive branch of government. My question is if the framers wanted to include president in the 14th section 3 ,why list senator and representatives and electors down to lower ranked officers and group president with lower officials? Seems like they'd list "president "
Only in America. These debates do nothing toward recognising how broken not just political systems but so to the institutions of government are. A functioning democracy would have allready tried Trump, found him guilty & locked him up.
We're IMPROVING and still building here at home ever since the founding. If you're in the process of building your house and it's not finished, is it broken?
"quibler" = hairsplitter. It's a senseless, indeed destructive occupation that may well come at a very high price. Lawyers will argue anything for a price or to puff up their reputations.
I agree and in the meantime, people rot in jail and Trump is allowed to run riot when he should have been in a cell the same day as the insurrection. This is not time for quibbling. It’s time to end this debacle .
I find it utterly ridiculous that hundreds of people who engaged in the attack on the Capitol have been tried and convicted and imprisoned for lengthy terms, some of them for seditious conspiracy and yet the man who inspired that attack still walks free. The images exist of him inciting this insurrection, urging them on, imploring them to fight for their country, declaring he would be with them on their march. How in God's name anyone could see and hear this and still pretend there is an argument to exclude Trump from the consequences of his actions is staggering in its self-deception. The man belongs in jail along with all the people he incited that day. He can not be allowed anywhere near the reigns of power again. He will use them to again attempt to destroy democracy in America. There is widespread evidence that such an effort is underway at this very moment, again being urged by Trump. The hand wringing and hair splitting going on over this issue appears to be a wilful effort to deny the country the right to fight against this disloyalty to the Constitution by refusing to use that very document to impead it's own destruction. It is insanity to allow this to continue. He must be stopped.
Cheseboro already admitted to the whole scheme under oath many times in several states. The insurrection has already been proven. The fake electors was also part of the attempt to remain in power. It’s had due process already. It’s an insurrection based on evidence in that Georgia case. Convictions as well just like you say, with the rioters. Who pooped everywhere. But the SC is cornered by previous courts and if you haven’t read the Amicus brief by Luttig and 20 lawyers explaining why Trump is disqualified. Please look it up. It will make you sleep easy. We shall soon see what the SC chooses to do.
Yet Biden, since he took office, canceled every executive order in place protecting the border from illegal crossings and has allowed crossings, aided and abetting them, when our constitution says otherwise. As to your rant about Trumps activity of insurrection, no matter the proof you think is there, where are the charges of insurrection? Where has he been accused and convicted of this? If you feel intelligent, why is there not ONE word in any indictment charge of insurrection? You'll soon see why when SCOTUS rules.
It clearly does. Having a forum at Harvard that it just might not lends equivalence to a bad faith argument. The real debate is, are we going to follow what the constitution clearly states or let ourselves get bullied by $$?
Just because President and Vice President was stricken doesn’t necessarily mean they wanted to exclude those offices, but rather to make the language clearer because all offices are included in the text. It’s just editing for clarity. Example: “I want all my children to come to dinner, including Bobby.” If Bobby is your child, he’s already covered. All the wording does is make the reader question whether Bobby is a child of the speaker or not. It makes it more confusing than it needs to be. Same thing here. 18:43
@@JoshuaFranta But he (Akhil) seemed to get owned by the 1L student question and went way overboard, lost his cool. Got too riled up. Appeared too emotionally invested in his position. Mukasey, to my chagrin, appeared more lawyerly.
Insurrection on the federal level is the jurisdiction of federal government courts and it happened in DC So it would be tried in DC by a federal court not by local state judges in Colorado
@@Robert-fs6ge Section 3 says nothing about either charges or conviction. It simply says "engaged". It appears from the historical record (read the amicus brief submitted to SCOTUS by 14th Amendment historians) the wording was intentional. Wouldn't the logic of the Hobbs ruling apply to election laws as well?
@@richardhoner7842 section 3 doesn't say conviction is needed because guilt is not assumed. He must be convicted of having engaged in insurrection. 18USC2383 is the legal mechanism. Congress has not established that civil case law is a legal standard for removal because of the 14th section 3. Congress has established 13USC2383 is the legal standard however. Local state judges can't legislate a disqualification standard
@@richardhoner7842 I've read their ruling. All dem judges and still ended up 4 to 3. I'm not saying they can't make the ruling I'm saying its not in their jurisdiction to determine who's on the ballot in a federal government election for all states If they remove a candidate in their state it interferes with all states. We both have opinions but it's the Supreme Court decision that will rule
Why do we only fret the violence that might be caused by disqualification and not fret the violence that non- disqualification might cause/ And if it is left to congress it is sure to be partisan not lawful
Originalism is self-contradictory. Where does it say in the text of the Constitution that we must interpret it exclusively by what its authors intended it to mean? Seeing that it doesn't state this, the interpretation of the Constitution cannot limit each living generation by it's author's original intent. Context matters.
The Constitution says nothing about interpretation because, like all lawmakers, it is expected that the plain meaning of the words is the interpretation. If your view is correct then are laws passed last year open to interpretation? Can they be given new and novel meaning?
Congress passed the Ethics in Government Act in 1978 that defined the President as an officer in paragraph 101 (f)(1), which supports the Fourteenth Amendment and further spells out who is an Officer of the Government.
@Hongkongfueee I agree, but engage does matter bc what if he never said fight and once there was violence he told them to stop? We might say he didn't engage and therefore shouldn't be disqualified. They did it, but he didn't. Well, he did say fight and he waited 3 hrs before telling them to go home. Does that rise to "engage"? I think so, but it's a close call. Officer and support is splitting hairs, but the Presidential oath doesn't use the word support and in other provisions of the Constitution, the President isn't an officer. So, that's a plausible, albeit very technical, off-ramp. I think he is disqualified, but it's a close case. I just finished reading the main brief alleging Trump is disqualified. **It's really strong** I still think it's 50/50 that he will be found disqualified. If you want to get beyond the headlines and talking heads, read this brief. www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/298854/20240126115645084_23-719%20Anderson%20Respondents%20Merits%20Brief.pdf
The debate/discussion begins at 4:25. 16:15 what a ridiculous question. He was right to be amazed at such question. What a shame that this was not a debate where each side was allowed to present their arguments uninterrupted with rebuttals. Instead the moderator interrupted the flow and was quite honestly a very bad moderator and questioner.
In order for the 14th Amendment, Section 3 to apply, there would have to be an insurrection or rebellion. There wasn’t. Then Trump would have participated. He didn’t. You mistyped US Constitution. It’s always capitalized.
@@MS-ns2pj No, the former judge in Illinois is a conservative. It has nothing to do with party- we all saw and heard what happened. Trump tried to overturn the election of 2020- you can’t pretend like that didn’t happen.
@@MS-ns2pj That was a true insurrection. What do you think an insurrection is? Also, there are many conservative judges who say Trump engaged in insurrection- including judges and legal scholars who belong to the conservative Federalist Society.
Selected Officers Selected a leading Officer to the Office Meaning hold president Office There are all working in Offices not ploughing plots or a Golfer!
The Framers also felt we had COMMON SENSE. Intelligence says we as humans need to exercise our brains to reason that even though it's not stated in the text, the inference is that the president and vice president were already considered. What are the president and vice president aren't included, where is the accountability for them?
Yes the list is a descending list and the president/officer is listed after the legislators because in the old days the Congress was MORE important than the presidency. How do I know? What is the FIRST article of the Constitution about? Is it about the presidency? No, it's about Congress.
Yes there is a legal definition, although the one you cite is from 1948… which was made for reasons that I hope are self evident to history loving individuals, but the legal definition may not be what’s at play here to decide the case. It becomes what’s in play here only if the self executing question is answered with a resolute no. Although even then the manner of which disqualification is to be decided is still up in the air and the legal definition still might not matter. (I do think they would decide it did matter if they do end up ruling that way though.) And if clause 3 of the 14th amendment is found to be self executing then what matters is the constitutional definition of insurrection. This is what Prof. Amar in the video was making the argument for as he believes that a second insurrection occurred before the larger one known as the Civil War. If this is indeed the case (I do not know enough of the history to “rule” in on that part), and it was indeed in the minds of the drafters of the 14th, then what would matter is if Trump broke his crucial oath of office as did John B. Floyd. Sorry for being incredibly lengthy in a TH-cam comment section reply, but I just thought it was important to properly understand the constitutional arguments at play in the video when citing something as seemingly important. (Which again as I said earlier it might come to be.) Hopefully any of that was helpful and not just redundant for you as well lol.
There’s no way I’m falling for that again. I’ll sit this one out- once the GOP reforms itself, second-rate administrations such as Biden’s will lose their mandate.
To short. The moderator seemed to favor one side over the other. "The polls" is not what elects the President. How many times has the plurality won at the polls?
The quibbling holds a dry bowl of water. Your position is enviable in your process to demonstrate how you catch a fart in one’s mittens, hence your 13th Amendment position.
What is the reason the words "President" and "Vice President" were stricken from the text of the 14th amendment? Were the authors saying that having a President or Vice President who engaged in insurrection or rebellion would be of benefit to the country? Of course not.
Come on guys stop confusing yourselves. Right at the beginning of section 3 of the 14th amendment it states clearly the words "No Person" which means if the president is not a person then this law should not apply to him....."Point To Ponder"
This having to be debated at all when the language in the constitution is as clear as anything ever was is why ive lost faith in our democracy. Our democracy cant keep up with Trumps criminal acts. The only reason we still have a democracy is because of his rabid incompetence.
The Supreme Court of the United States should disqualify Trump not the Constitution, and all State Supreme Courts should do the same. There should be no judication about this. If a poor American can follow the Constitution, so can the very rich and educated, including lawyers.
If one holds an OFFICE he or she if the OFFICER of that OFFICE! Obviously! No argument can realistically be made against this. It is self evident, like all the rights entitled in the Declaration of Independence
Mikasey is a corporate lawyer of the right-wing, and so there's money in his bank accout to perform this nonesense he's spewing. Not to exclude the fact that he is full of it. On the other hand the good professor is in this because he's concerned about our democracy, while taking no monetary influences. In fact with the way universities are treating professors he may be putting his career on the line.
So the guy on the right is considered an expert on the Constitution? He can barely form an argument. Okay, I'm willing to yield that there are arguments on both sides of the 'Officer' issue, but the Constitution doesn't require Congress to take action. And we're talking about the Congressional record so it says what it says. Tell me, do you think he's immune? Doubt it.
There was a judge removed by the US Senate. Since he wasn't banned from running for office, the voters made him a member of the House of Representatives.
In reality, trump should not only be disqualified he should be in jail pending his criminal trials. The evidence against him is overwhelming and should be taken into consideration.
Analysis of this topic is frustrating because all of the evidence required to arrive at a conclusion either for- or against Trump 's personal involvement in the January 6 events, his violation of the 14th Amendment, and whether he is precluded from seeking re-election to public office -- is publicly available. "Engage", "support and or aid-and-comfort", "officer", "insurrection", the true elective power of the electoral college, "whether a formal conviction by congress is actually required for disqualification and whether that is enough to bar him", and the limitations of "Trump's free speech" can all be answered definitely...by ChatGPT. The only reason we have not arrived at an answer is politics, wokeness politics engineering, and political correctness.
@@slyleprecon5521 A few people, who acted on their own, went too far. Most people plead guilty because they don’t think they can win in court. It doesn’t always mean that they’re guilty. If those people committed seditious conspiracy then they’ve been punished appropriately. Seditious conspiracy is not insurrection or rebellion. Nobody has been charged with insurrection for the events of that day because it was not an insurrection. Source: 26 years and counting of law enforcement and courtroom experience. I’m currently a Sheriff’s Lieutenant in a large county.
Much of this frustrating "paralysis from analysis" derives from how poorly Sec. 3 is written and the fact that it's entire objective is partisan political management of who shall and shall not hold federal office in a reconstructed Union following the Civil War. It's simply BAD LAW, and it's bad law even if one is sympathetic to the motives held by the victorious Union forces. Insurrection was and always has been the most serious crime against a democratically elected government. Commission of that crime fairly DEMANDS criminal prosecution. But in it's stead and for a carefully crafted group of violators Congress fashioned a MERE civil penalty for one of it's most severe felonies. But again, if one finds that forgivable in 1868, how in the hell do you defend it in the year 2024 when the primary target of the "criminal complaint" is a single individual? If Trump committed an insurrection, then OF COURSE he should be CRIMINALLY prosecuted. But the lure of invoking Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment seems to be this fixation with permanent disqualification from office by the comparative ease of "self-executing" fanciful means. This is the fallacy. It's as if most people are unaware that criminal conviction under 18 USC 2383 ALSO CARRIES a MANDATORY disqualification from office, and it does so with much greater clarity of language than that contained in Sec. 3.
😂😂😂, scholars of law and constitution? I think their Kinney garden scholars. 14th amendment section 3 couldn't be any clearer.. its clearly states it, potus is a civil service position..
the supreme court is not the final arbiter. For the Supreme Court to be the arbiter of its own power asserts that the federal government’s only limitation is its own judgement and will. Such a premise would negate the very existence of the Constitution that created the federal government. The judiciary is just as limited in its power by the Constitution as the other two branches of government.
02/16/24: RE: Trump vs. Anderson, et. al, is a case out of Colorado, currently being argued in the U.S. Supreme Court on 02/08/24: To make a long legal story short, both substantive and procedural due process has not been done in regards to determining whether Trump participated in "insurrection" (which also needs to be legally defined). Further, this is an issue of national concern, for which a State cannot make the decision on whether Trump is eligible to be on the ballot for the federal (emphasis supplied) election of the President of the United States. Hence, the State of Colorado lacks jurisdiction. Relatedly, and further, Congress is required to be involved, in the final determination in this 14th Amendment, Article 3 matter, & Congress has not been involved-- yet another due process violation on the part of the State of Colorado. My law topic videos coming soon to TH-cam. ; ) Another interesting case out of Oklahoma where State of Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction for someone running for federal office: "Bradshaw v. Oklahoma State Election Bd., 98 P.3d 1092".
Yeah, OK... a state trial court and a state Supreme Court -- both -- are going to hear and issue rulings on a monumental and widely-publicized case for which those courts have no jurisdiction. You clearly misunderstand the subject-matter in its entirety. Every single assertion is just wrong.
When we speak of 'Running for Office' it is not the same as 'Running to catch a Bus' Running is -,applying for office' did he get the job or not. His intention is to work there. At the WhiteHouse.
Nonsense. The constitution says that all executive power is vested in the president of United States. Many of his powers and discrettions are specified in the constitution.. then Congress passes has passed many many laws, creating agencies and officers, and giving them very powers and discretion. But all of those powers indiscretions are vested in the president, and are merely a ways in which he and Congress have facilitated the delegation of those powers. The critical point is when the president is acting in his official capacity, his acts cannot be criminalized because his authority and discretion to perform the act directly from the constitution. The constitution is the supreme law of the land, and trumps any attempt to diminish his authority. Further, when the Congress of the United States impeached as a president and then vines him, not guilty of insurrection on January 6 that establishes as a matter of constitutional law, that he is entitled and qualified to continue as president notwithstanding anything that occurred on January 6. Not finding by Congress and the constitutional effect which result supersedes any attempt by any lesser quart or entity to find him guilty of something on January 6.
Is the president an officer: lets also look at the federalist papers written by Alexander Hamilton. In Federalist 69, about the executive, "The President of the United States would be an officer elected by the people for four years" In Federalist 71, about the executive, "necessary to give to the officer himself the inclination and the resolution to act his part well" In Federalist 76, about appointments by the president, "which might attend the absolute power of appointment in the hands of that officer would be avoided." in Federalist 67, about appointments by the executive "to appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of United States whose appointments are NOT in the Constitution" - this suggests that "officers" is a generic term for those who serve in government. The fact that phrasing was changed from one draft often has as much to do with style as content. So, that the words "the president" was stricken from a previous draft does not mean that its meaning was stricken. Look at the words being used, not at what was not used.
There were 2 points made by the gentleman arguing against keeping Donald Trump on the ballot and overturning the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court. Both are flawed. The first about the potential for violence that might be worse if SCOTUS upholds the Col. Court. The court CANNOT or rather SHOULD have their ruling be biased by the potential for civil unrest. The second argument is that he should be defeated at the polls. Does the gentleman really think that Donald Trump (and by extension his followers) will accept a decision other than his election? He will claim that the election was rigged, that his 4 indictments and 91 felony charges, his 2 civil cases were all part of a left wing conspiracy that prevented him from a proper election campaign. I hope SCOTUS indeed makes an unbiased decision to keep Mr. Trump off the ballot. I believe section 3 of the 14th Amendment is as self-executing as keeping Taylor Swift or Arnold Schwarzenegger off the ballot.
Some of the people here who have made the most illogical and ridiculous comments here have been the least gracious. Congress is the legislative branch, the law-making branch. The executive branch is the branch charged with executing and enforcing the law. The law professor made at least two arguments: 1. The historical context of the writing and debating of the text makes it clear that the president was in view here. 2. It would be nonsensical if it applied to offices with less power, but not to the president with more power than anybody else in government. Since one person wrote off the law professor's briefs because they disliked the law professor's argument but didn't substantiate or buttress that view, we are left comparing a random commenter with the legal background of the professor. The most obvious reason that the word convict or conviction doesn't appear in the text is that they didn't want that to be a requirement for the application of this passage. The historical context supports that conclusion. They would not want Jefferson Davis or Robert E Lee to be eligible to be president or to have their eligibility based upon a court which could in the South be sympathetic to their previous actions. If a person is 33 years of age and won't turn 35 years of age by the day of the presidential election, then they are ineligible to hold the office of president. This is a requirement to be eligible to be president just as not having engaged in insurrection. I remember and it wasn't that long ago that being a republican and we respected expertise and we valued the obvious reading of the text. If you were in a political vacuum and away from the noise and all you had was the text and the historical context of the text as it was being written, debated, and confirmed what would you conclude that the authors meant and how would they have wanted it to be applied or not applied today? If you were just reading the text in the most normal, obvious, common sense, straightforward approach and kept the historical context in mind, what would you conclude the text meant and how if at all would you conclude it should be applied in our day at this time? I believe that these two questions are absolutely devastating to the Trump friendly interpretation of the text. When highly respected jurists on both sides of the political spectrum agree about the meaning and application of the text in our present case and when you take into account that even two members of the Federalist Society agree with their interpretation and application of the text to Trump, then those taking the other side have to ask themselves if they are bearing a burden which they take to the text along with politically dominated glasses when they look at the text. The fact that highly respected conservative jurists agree with this interpretation and application of this text must be fully wrestled with. This ought to induce some humility on those on the other side who come across as arrogant and condescending as they possibly could. Given the stature and the expertise and the decades of studying this text for decades, a little humility might be in order. That's especially true since they are taking the position least likely to be derived directly from the natural reading of the text and it's historical context.
This discussion is interesting and meaningful. I am on the side of the professor sitting on the right on the screen. We shall follow the Justice process when we are not in the urgent situation. 😊
NO, NO every person, EVERY PERSON should have due process. To exclude Trump in some states and qualified in others will cause a constitutional crisis on a level we have never seen.
@@alanking6240 Fine. I agree. Ban Trump across the board; all 50 states. Uniformity rules. Happy? Or maybe, if you are still a constitutionalist, why not just put up a candidate other than Trump, who clearly disqualified himself on Jan 6 by inciting an insurrection?
Chaz/chop was a clearer example of insurrection. How many days did the State allow it? Yet, how many were convicted of insurrection? 7 judges of the CO Supreme Court ruled. All 7 were Democrats. It went 4-3. The three dissenting judges were quite clear. Their decision wasnt the final verdict. But, their arguments are expected to be said before SCOTUS.
Were those 7 Democrats duly-appointed judges -- duly-appointed Supreme Court judges -- or were they not? Is 4 a number that is greater than 3.... or is it not? Is 4 a majority of 7.... or is it not? Was the vote on insurrection unanimous -- 7-0 -- or was it not? That is, did those 7 Supreme Court judges vote unanimously -- 7-0 -- on the subject of whether Trump's insurrection had been proven at trial in the lower court by "clear and convincing evidence" .... or did they not? A 7-0 state Supreme Court majority ruling that THE FACT of Trump's Insurrection had been established by "clear and convincing evidence" is the clearest authoritative statement on record -- to date -- of Trump's Insurrection. Q.E.D.
Guilty is a matter for criminal trials where consequences involve loss of liberty. Not being able to run for president isn't depriving somebody of their liberty. Even if it was, where's the due process for tens of millions of people under 35 who can't run?
The office/officer argument is truly redundant and asinine as well as the other minutiae brought up by the Trump's team such as self-executing. The salient point here is that Trump has not been convicted of rebellion or insurrection or the aiding and abetting of such. 18 US Code SS 2383 is a federal matter that's ultimately left to what the Supreme Court decides. Until then, Trump is innocent whose actions have not met the definition of S3 of the 14th Amendment. On a separate note, even if Trump is found to have engaged in such activities, S3 of the 14th doesn't prevent him from running for president. Removing him from the ballot based on this section is a point-blank misinterpretation and misapplication of the Constitution. He can be barred from holding the office after winning the election, just like a banned athlete will remain on the bench pending a sports committee review. According to section 3, the Congress is vested with the authority and the final say on this matter through a vote, not the states via ballot tampering.
The relevant section of the 14th Amendment, Section 3, reads as follows: "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." For Trump to be disqualified under the 14th Amendment, it would likely require a legal process and possibly a decision by the courts, including potentially the Supreme Court, to interpret the meaning and application of the term "engagement in insurrection or rebellion" in this context. As of my last update, no such legal process had definitively resolved the question.
And despite what many scholars are saying, including Akhil Amar (who I admire), the "officer" argument has plenty of weight behind it and 3 Colorado (Democrat-appointed) supreme court justices agreed. So did several other states.
Did Trump engage in or aid in an insurrection or rebellion? He can be sued for inciting a mob but that isn't the same as an insurrection or rebellion. Please excuse any unknown ignorance on my part.
Did Trump engage or aid in a rebellion or insurrection? I believe that has been ruled on. If not, excuse my ignorance. Trump is able to be sued for creating a riot but I don't believe that will be seen as a rebellion or insurrection.
insurrection noun in·sur·rec·tion ˌin(t)-sə-ˈrek-shən Synonyms of insurrection : an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government
Gosh ... Text is made up of 'words'. Any 'word' can be looked up in a dictionary and there may be ONE or SEVERAL 'meanings' of the 'word'. And then people use the 'word' (with different meanings), or mis-use the 'word'. Then there are connotations, implications, denotations, innuendo, and nonsense. The Constitution is NOT a fixed document ... that is insane. The constitution is NOT a Bible, Torah, Quran, Bhagavad-gita or other religious text... it's a social and political document THAT HAS BEEN AMENDED! If trump is eligible to be president then this is scary beyond belief. He fomented people to act on his behalf to stop the peaceful transfer of power. Trump KNEW HE LOST! He Markets 'fake' as 'real'... What sells better? "I lost" or "stop the steal?" The Courts must stop him.
@@martinstephens4633 Yes, I am aware of why some Democrats do that. They’re painfully immature. I also understood why the original poster said Trump is the best chance for Biden. I strongly disagree, based on the facts. I’ve been an adult since I was 15’ but I deal with enough children and overgrown children to recognize and understand their behavior. So, rather than failing to get it, I understood it, recognized it for what it is, and decided to respond to it.
Akhil Amar needs to look back at his history concerning the 14th amendment section 3, he is leaving out extremely important facts as to why the president was excluded. Jefferson Davis was disqualified from holding office because he held the office of governor of Arkansas. The whole idea of this amendment was to save Jefferson Davis from being hung for treason which the 39th congress felt the south would rise up again if Davis was executed. There is more history concerning Reverdy Johnson. These people are suppose to be scholars but are extremely dumb when it comes to the history.
A group of historians, well-versed in the era and the Amendment, filed an amicus brief with the SCOTUS that addresses your concerns. You ought to read it. They do not agree with your analysis and provide evidence for their claims.
He was frustrated having to argue with people who either didn't read his brief or continued to hold positions that were in opposition to facts presented in his brief.
Sry, after the first question was put to the guyI heard a long suck up and lengthy bootlicking. At 5:09 he still had not directly addressed the question asked, which was the whole topic and the whole point. I quit watching, whether or not a Rube has grouse legal credentials I do not have sphinx-like patience nor a gut of iron to swallow pure bs. Thought I would add that. And dock his gratuity, calculate every extra word he took to get to the point at hollywood rates. Then dock it from the fee. This is why the courts are so tied up.
I agree. Suggesting Jefferson Davis were to run for President of the United States was an absurd notion. It's like saying Adolf Hilter wanted to be elected Prime Minister of Isreal.
You failed your word association pretty bad here lol. In the video specific conversations were cited when this was mentioned. Also Davis had already been elected as a congressman- it's that oath that he violated- and it was specifically discussed they didn't want him serving in congress either if he wasn't jailed for treason (hence 14th disqualification for ANY office under the united states).
Section 5 of the 14th Amendment provides the remedy for someone convicted of insurrection. No one has been charged with insurrection, let alone convicted of insurrection.
@@imperialmotoring3789 I have. I think along the lines of this amicus brief. Start at page 8. www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/299107/20240129171610494_23-719_Amici%20Brief.pdf. I find it telling that Trump's own legal team makes no mention of Section 5.
Enemies of the state…people who did not support the insurrection and who did not wish the lawful election to be overturned merely because Trump wanted to stay President.
I AM A HUMAN BEING AND I CHOOSE TO PRIORITIZE THAT I BE ABLE TO CREATE RELATIONSHIPS PRIVATE AND ABSOLUTE PRIVACY THAT I AM BEING DENIED TO BUILD A SUPPORT A SYSTEM THAT EVEN POWs OR ANY AND EVERY PRISONER HAS THAT IS NOT CONFINED INTO THE LESS INHUMANE SOLITARY CONFINEMENT AND ISOLATION.
No. The American people get to speak in this democracy. If they want Trump, they should be able to choose him. Our system is robust enough to withstand a Trump presidency without the “fantastic” Harvard scholars great help.
The exercise of disqualification has the potential to strengthen a democracy; I would vote for disqualification. Though, I do agree with you and let the people vote for what ails the nation. Swayed beyond the hubris of a blustery bully, 45.
@@DeckerCreekAnd while we are at it get rid of the supreme Court Congress as a whole on both the state and federal level because the people would choose
@@patrickzink2191, we are a country based on rules and laws. If the people want to change the law, ok but right now Trump broke the law. He should be accountable, otherwise else there will be chaos.
I have 3 potential presidential candidates that I want to vote for. 1) One is only 30 years old 2) The other was born outside the US and became a naturalized US citizen 3) The other is a US citizen, but was born abroad, and has never lived in the US. Oh wait, the Constitution says that none of these 3 people are eligible to become president. Well, let's just forget the Constitution and let these people run and potentially win and become president. Same thing for the 14th Amendment. Why let the Constitution get in the way of doing things in the USA?
Does it require guilt of insurrection, the person on the end in a Federal court since the office of the President is a Federal election. Has Trump been found guilty in a Federal Court of Insurrection ???? The one lawyer is applying a,standard based on feeling of hate ( you guilty because I don't like you) ridiculous.
A conviction isn't necessary bc it's a disqualification which is not a criminal penalty. For it to be a criminal penalty, it would need to take life, liberty, or property. Disqualifying bc someone is too young, not a natural born citizen, not here 14 years, impeached and removed, or engaged in insurrection are disqualifications, not criminal penalties, and therefore require a civil suit, not a criminal suit.
@@PrevailVideos even civil suits require adequate due process. Which has not happened here. The whole thing is moot anyway since theres no evidence an insurrection occurred much less that President Trump engaged in one.
@Jackaccount There was a hearing at the district court where Trump provided evidence and there was opportunity for his team to provide more evidence, but they supplied all they wanted. Regarding whether there was an insurrection, Trump's lawyers have abandoned even arguing it wasn't an insurrection. They argued that in the lower courts, but in their brief to the Supreme Court they left it off. That's a classic sign of implicitly acknowledging that they lost that legal point. Trump can still win on a technicality. Most think he will.
![ประสบการณ์ จ้าง Developer ที่ผมจะไม่มีวันลืม [ภาค2]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pZbsSDRrmXA/mqdefault.jpg)
As a Canadian, I value civility. As a keen observer of American political discourse for 6 decades, I despair that it has fallen so far so fast among our southern neighbours. That is why it is reassuring to watch this discussion.
President Kennedy referred himself as an officer: “Victory has a hundred fathers, but defeat is an orphan… I am the responsible officer of the government.”
Didn't Trump say he was the CEO of the country at some point? 🤦 I don't understand how you can hold an office without being an officer.
The basis of this conversation, is the constitution. Your logic (even though admirable) is based on the Trumps words. I’m sorry it’s not based on the constitution. It’s rather subjective.
@@Chips505 You mistyped US Constitution. It’s always capitalized.
@@MS-ns2pj😂
Noted. Thank you.
In the NY hush money case coming up, Trump argued in a pretrial motion that he was an officer and was immune from prosecution and the case should be moved to a Federal court. The judge agreed he was an officer, but still said he was acting outside the outer boundaries of his office as it was election and campaigning activities and those are not within the scope of presidential duties. Immunity denied removal to Fedral court denied. But he was declared an officer in that pretrial motion by the judge.
anyone can hold an office without being an officer. the navy is a prime example. regardless of rank, if you hold the command of a ship you're the captain of the ship. an officer.
He's definitely given aid comfort to the people he calls hostages.
If the attack on the Capitol was, indeed, an "insurrection" for purposes of applying the Sec. 3 penalty of disqualification from office, it was an illegal act that ended on the very day it began. And whether Trump "engaged in it" or merely gave it "aid and comfort," his culpability ends with an insurrection that was only "active" in terms of planning and execution. No criminal act or civil liability enjoys perpetuity. He cannot be held liable TODAY for promising to grant pardons if elected or characterizing convicted criminals as "hostages," however stupid that characterization may be. Statutes of limitations still exist.
@@LarryK-jg6iwPresident isn't listed in the 14th section 3. The remedy is to not hold office but it says nothing is removal from ballots.
What's your opinion about local state judges ruling on federal election matters instead of federal courts where the violation occurred?
@@LarryK-jg6iw FEDERAL CRIMES WITH NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
Federal capital crimes, including violent crimes or those that can be punished by the death penalty, have unlimited time to bring charges. Examples of federal crimes include:
Capital murder, including genocide, murder committed in a federal building, or committed during a drug trafficking crime.
Civil rights offenses resulting in death
Espionage
Murder of a foreign official, member of Congress, Supreme Court Justice, federal judge, or federal law enforcement officer
Treason
Sex offenses in which the victim is a minor
@@Robert-fs6ge "It’s important to note that an individual can be charged at both the state and federal level for the same crimes. Often, the state will begin the investigation or begin prosecution and then the federal courts will take over the crime or prosecute it after the state crimes have been prosecuted."
@@trudy5963 I understand that and it's been pointed out. However congress has not established that civil case law is a legal standard for removal of a candidate because of the 14th section 3.
Given the right to due process before a privilege can be revoked, the only current legal standard is 13USC2383 which is a criminal code. Congress enforces insurrection law by appropriate legislation and it's not been determined by congress that 13USC2383 isn't the only legal mechanism. The 14th section 3 doesn't say conviction is required because guilt is not assumed.
Commander in chief, an officer.
Not charged with insurrection though.
TRUMP2024
Nobody has been charged with an insurrection because there never was an insurrection.
We will see what the Supreme Court says about that. Oral arguments begin on February 8th. @@MS-ns2pj
Commanding officer and sideshow clown
@@imperialmotoring3789 The 14th makes no mention of either a charge or a conviction.
2024... semantics will possibly bring down the greatest democracy the world has seen.
Interpretation of the Constitution isn't really semantics. The rule followed by the Judiciary Branch of our government for decades is that unless the language is ambiguous then nothing shall be inferred. You go with the plain meaning of the words as written.
Fascinating discussion. Thank you. There's much to be said for our unwritten constitution on this side of the pond!
Democrats despise the Constitution.
Perhaps you heard our border is under invasion?
Indeed. The US constitution is now a nightmare. It assumed rational and wise electors electing wise people. It's now got party politics, Twitter, MAGA and Trump. Its stuck trying to interpret something vague drafted centuries ago - rather than the UK system where Parliament writes laws to match changing need and political structures. And it succeeds in having two parts of the US legislature with the power to actually produce deadlock and nothing done and a President who often has no majority to do anything . The UKs PM has to have a majority in the legislature. And the second chambermaid, by contrast, has no say in spending, and can only delay legislation it thinks need changes. The US actually bestows King like powers , like commanding the armed forces , on an active politician - which the UK avoids by making the armed services crown servants able to ignore crazy orders as they work for a monarch not the PM . And the current UScmess - with a grid kocked legislature, gerrymandered seats - because there is no independent neutral body to decide boundaries , and the absurdity of S Dakota having the same Senate representation as California - cant be sorted out - as the requirements for constitutional change were designed for 13 similar states, and are unachievable given the interests that prefer the status quo. Its dragging America down. And there seems no way to make the necessary changes.
Politics be damned The man is disqualified by his actions.
His actions of putting America first?
His Actions Stood for All Americans 👉 in COVID Crisis Funded Poor Middle class Americans
His Actions Stood Against Biden Democrats Aiding Abetting Funding Ilegal Undocument Aliens Endangering Americans Taxpayers Citizens 👉💯👀
His Actions Stood Against Biden Democrats Aiding Abetting Funding Ilegal Undocument Aliens Endangering Americans Taxpayers Citizens 👉💯👀
Fascinating discussion. 03:06 - It's run FOR office, not FROM office. Oops. 13:26 - Correct, Michael: The President doesn't appoint or commission himself. Why? Because WE THE PEOPLE appoint and commission the nominee or candidate according to elections spelled out in our United States Constitution and the laws of our country; to thereby become the Chief Executive OFFICER of the highest OFFICE in our land, who takes an Oath of OFFICE at the inauguration to SUPPORT the U.S. by preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United States of America, who then works out of the Oval OFFICE. Really? States have Secretaries of State who ultimately are empowered to allow a nominee or candidate to be on the States' ballots and are obligated to obey Section 3 of the 14th Amendment among the other criteria. Agreed. Judge Chutkan's case that's being held up by Trump's claim that he is immune from his clear and obvious crimes and violations of his Oath of OFFICE will happen in a few months. He's most likely to be found guilty. Trump would have been a good citizen to have done what Al Gore did: concede gracefully! What a disgusting shame Trump is. WE THE PEOPLE owe Donald John Trump a debt of gratitude for strengthening our Federal Constitutional Democratic Republic against fascist authoritarianism and dictatorship! Let US reward him with a nice orange jumpsuit!
I find it hard to wrap my mind around the idea that if a congressman or senator was found guilty of insurrection he/she would unworthy of holding office ever again but could run for president.
They couldn't run again because they'd have already been disqualified
No, being CONVICTED of insurrection, you cannot hold any office in government. The difference with Trump is that he has NEVER been convicted of insurrection. You can't place a criminal label on anyone who has not been tried and found guilty. The senate tried in the 2nd impeachment, but charges were acquitted, meaning no criminal label.
@@Robert-fs6ge I Believe this person is referencing Donald Trump's legal defense for disqualification which rests in part on the absurd notion that the president is not an "officer" of the United States. I don't know if it's in the legal defense, but I know Trump has argued publicly that he never took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution which is just bonkers.
@@Robert-fs6ge you take an oath of OFFICE as president. You occupy the OFFICE of the president. You occupy the OFFICE for 4 year terms.
The interpretation that the president is not an officer is incompatible with the plain text of the Constitution, and the intent of the authors. Donald Trump himself successfully argued in K&D LLC v. Trump Old Post Office that the president was an "officer", and that was the grounds with which he removed the suit.
The Colorado supreme Court has already rejected the argument that there is a meaningful distinction between "support" and "preserve, protect and defend."
@@blitz8425 The question of whether a president is an officer is interesting and I see both sides. He's called chief executive officer and there's the office of the president. On the other hand president is the executive branch of government. My question is if the framers wanted to include president in the 14th section 3 ,why list senator and representatives and electors down to lower ranked officers and group president with lower officials? Seems like they'd list "president "
I agree w Luttig and Tribe.
Only in America. These debates do nothing toward recognising how broken not just political systems but so to the institutions of government are. A functioning democracy would have allready tried Trump, found him guilty & locked him up.
Correction.
A functioning fascism would have already locked up Trump.
@@imperialmotoring3789 you might want to do some research
thank you
We're IMPROVING and still building here at home ever since the founding. If you're in the process of building your house and it's not finished, is it broken?
@@timmah941 sounds like a renovators dream. Best attended to by quality craftsmanship & skilled trades people. A lawyer free endeavour.
"quibler" = hairsplitter. It's a senseless, indeed destructive occupation that may well come at a very high price. Lawyers will argue anything for a price or to puff up their reputations.
I agree and in the meantime, people rot in jail and Trump is allowed to run riot when he should have been in a cell the same day as the insurrection. This is not time for quibbling. It’s time to end this debacle .
Let’s just follow The Spirit of The Law, come on, let’s get it over with.
it’s the Oval OFFICE, lol
I find it utterly ridiculous that hundreds of people who engaged in the attack on the Capitol have been tried and convicted and imprisoned for lengthy terms, some of them for seditious conspiracy and yet the man who inspired that attack still walks free. The images exist of him inciting this insurrection, urging them on, imploring them to fight for their country, declaring he would be with them on their march. How in God's name anyone could see and hear this and still pretend there is an argument to exclude Trump from the consequences of his actions is staggering in its self-deception. The man belongs in jail along with all the people he incited that day. He can not be allowed anywhere near the reigns of power again. He will use them to again attempt to destroy democracy in America. There is widespread evidence that such an effort is underway at this very moment, again being urged by Trump. The hand wringing and hair splitting going on over this issue appears to be a wilful effort to deny the country the right to fight against this disloyalty to the Constitution by refusing to use that very document to impead it's own destruction. It is insanity to allow this to continue. He must be stopped.
Oh yes, Brian. He's about to be STOPPED! Hello Jack Smith and Judge Chutkan.
GOD Speed@@timmah941
Cheseboro already admitted to the whole scheme under oath many times in several states. The insurrection has already been proven. The fake electors was also part of the attempt to remain in power. It’s had due process already. It’s an insurrection based on evidence in that Georgia case. Convictions as well just like you say, with the rioters. Who pooped everywhere. But the SC is cornered by previous courts and if you haven’t read the Amicus brief by Luttig and 20 lawyers explaining why Trump is disqualified. Please look it up. It will make you sleep easy. We shall soon see what the SC chooses to do.
Yet Biden, since he took office, canceled every executive order in place protecting the border from illegal crossings and has allowed crossings, aided and abetting them, when our constitution says otherwise. As to your rant about Trumps activity of insurrection, no matter the proof you think is there, where are the charges of insurrection? Where has he been accused and convicted of this? If you feel intelligent, why is there not ONE word in any indictment charge of insurrection? You'll soon see why when SCOTUS rules.
I’m with you one thousand percent. Infuriating.
It clearly does. Having a forum at Harvard that it just might not lends equivalence to a bad faith argument.
The real debate is, are we going to follow what the constitution clearly states or let ourselves get bullied by $$?
Just because President and Vice President was stricken doesn’t necessarily mean they wanted to exclude those offices, but rather to make the language clearer because all offices are included in the text. It’s just editing for clarity.
Example: “I want all my children to come to dinner, including Bobby.”
If Bobby is your child, he’s already covered. All the wording does is make the reader question whether Bobby is a child of the speaker or not. It makes it more confusing than it needs to be. Same thing here. 18:43
14th amendment says officers not offices. just to be clear.
True. And what does an "officer" work out of? Wow. @@alanking6240
I'm confused. Can there be "Officers" without "offices" and "offices" without "Officers"?
They didn't include "president " to make it clear president was included?
The president is the executive branch of government who appoints officers
So….after the Civil War they wanted to ban all the traitors from holding every single office in the Government except President. 🙄
Akhil is the man
he clearly was much more informed than mukasey.
@@JoshuaFranta But he (Akhil) seemed to get owned by the 1L student question and went way overboard, lost his cool. Got too riled up. Appeared too emotionally invested in his position. Mukasey, to my chagrin, appeared more lawyerly.
The Colorado Supreme Court covers all of this and explains it far more clearly, thoroughly, and correctly.
Insurrection on the federal level is the jurisdiction of federal government courts and it happened in DC So it would be tried in DC by a federal court not by local state judges in Colorado
@@Robert-fs6ge Section 3 says nothing about either charges or conviction. It simply says "engaged". It appears from the historical record (read the amicus brief submitted to SCOTUS by 14th Amendment historians) the wording was intentional. Wouldn't the logic of the Hobbs ruling apply to election laws as well?
@@richardhoner7842 section 3 doesn't say conviction is needed because guilt is not assumed. He must be convicted of having engaged in insurrection. 18USC2383 is the legal mechanism. Congress has not established that civil case law is a legal standard for removal because of the 14th section 3. Congress has established 13USC2383 is the legal standard however. Local state judges can't legislate a disqualification standard
@@Robert-fs6ge Legal scholars, not all, disagree with you as does the Colorado Supreme Court. You should read their ruling.
@@richardhoner7842 I've read their ruling. All dem judges and still ended up 4 to 3. I'm not saying they can't make the ruling I'm saying its not in their jurisdiction to determine who's on the ballot in a federal government election for all states If they remove a candidate in their state it interferes with all states. We both have opinions but it's the Supreme Court decision that will rule
But during the time it was ratified it was recognized as being self executing?
Yes. Same for the other sections.
Jefferson Davis argued that before the supreme court. They agreed and quashed his treason indictment
Yes.
says the random TH-cam commenter
@@euphegeniathe Constitution says it. 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
I listed for 11 seconds then read this comment. I think that sums it up.
@@DemonOfDublin very debatable
That shit don't make no sense, if the president and vice president aren't officers, then what the fuck are they doing running our nation?
Is it instruction to install unlawful electors
Why do we only fret the violence that might be caused by disqualification and not fret the violence that non- disqualification might cause/
And if it is left to congress it is sure to be partisan not lawful
Originalism is self-contradictory. Where does it say in the text of the Constitution that we must interpret it exclusively by what its authors intended it to mean? Seeing that it doesn't state this, the interpretation of the Constitution cannot limit each living generation by it's author's original intent. Context matters.
The Constitution says nothing about interpretation because, like all lawmakers, it is expected that the plain meaning of the words is the interpretation. If your view is correct then are laws passed last year open to interpretation? Can they be given new and novel meaning?
I assume any author of policy is forward thinking. Otherwise it’s just historical account, not a policy template for future decisions.
I’m hearing a lot of justification to simply keep Trump out of prison. How can anyone be taking Trump’s side every single point made here? Agenda.
Congress passed the Ethics in Government Act in 1978 that defined the President as an officer in paragraph 101 (f)(1), which supports the Fourteenth Amendment and further spells out who is an Officer of the Government.
This case will most likely be determined by the meaning of the words engage, officer, and support.
Office/officer for sure
Talk about splitting hairs. They are missing the big picture and dissecting it to shreds.
@Hongkongfueee I agree, but engage does matter bc what if he never said fight and once there was violence he told them to stop? We might say he didn't engage and therefore shouldn't be disqualified. They did it, but he didn't. Well, he did say fight and he waited 3 hrs before telling them to go home. Does that rise to "engage"? I think so, but it's a close call. Officer and support is splitting hairs, but the Presidential oath doesn't use the word support and in other provisions of the Constitution, the President isn't an officer. So, that's a plausible, albeit very technical, off-ramp. I think he is disqualified, but it's a close case.
I just finished reading the main brief alleging Trump is disqualified. **It's really strong** I still think it's 50/50 that he will be found disqualified. If you want to get beyond the headlines and talking heads, read this brief.
www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/298854/20240126115645084_23-719%20Anderson%20Respondents%20Merits%20Brief.pdf
That's the plan @@Unionjoint
How about rebellion?
The debate/discussion begins at 4:25.
16:15 what a ridiculous question. He was right to be amazed at such question.
What a shame that this was not a debate where each side was allowed to present their arguments uninterrupted with rebuttals. Instead the moderator interrupted the flow and was quite honestly a very bad moderator and questioner.
Are these open to public, not a Harvard student, but would love to watch in person
Why wasnt this 4hours? An important topic squeezed into sound bites...
If the 14th amendment section 3 does not apply to Trump, then it’s a dead letter and should be removed from the constitution.
In order for the 14th Amendment, Section 3 to apply, there would have to be an insurrection or rebellion. There wasn’t. Then Trump would have participated. He didn’t. You mistyped US Constitution. It’s always capitalized.
@@MS-ns2pj Every court/judge that has addressed this issue has concluded that Trump engaged in insurrection- the most recent being in Illinois.
@@GeechieDan-uu9wm They’re Democrats, and none of them have witnessed a true insurrection.
@@MS-ns2pj No, the former judge in Illinois is a conservative. It has nothing to do with party- we all saw and heard what happened. Trump tried to overturn the election of 2020- you can’t pretend like that didn’t happen.
@@MS-ns2pj That was a true insurrection. What do you think an insurrection is? Also, there are many conservative judges who say Trump engaged in insurrection- including judges and legal scholars who belong to the conservative Federalist Society.
Selected Officers
Selected a leading Officer to the Office
Meaning hold president Office
There are all working in Offices not ploughing plots or a Golfer!
Should we put so much weight on the text or just get to the desired result, thankfully we have the text and will put the weight on the text
The Framers also felt we had COMMON SENSE. Intelligence says we as humans need to exercise our brains to reason that even though it's not stated in the text, the inference is that the president and vice president were already considered. What are the president and vice president aren't included, where is the accountability for them?
It IS clearly stated. All officers, civil and military...
Yes the list is a descending list and the president/officer is listed after the legislators because in the old days the Congress was MORE important than the presidency. How do I know? What is the FIRST article of the Constitution about? Is it about the presidency? No, it's about Congress.
There is a legal definition of an insurrection: 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
Yes there is a legal definition, although the one you cite is from 1948… which was made for reasons that I hope are self evident to history loving individuals, but the legal definition may not be what’s at play here to decide the case. It becomes what’s in play here only if the self executing question is answered with a resolute no.
Although even then the manner of which disqualification is to be decided is still up in the air and the legal definition still might not matter. (I do think they would decide it did matter if they do end up ruling that way though.)
And if clause 3 of the 14th amendment is found to be self executing then what matters is the constitutional definition of insurrection.
This is what Prof. Amar in the video was making the argument for as he believes that a second insurrection occurred before the larger one known as the Civil War. If this is indeed the case (I do not know enough of the history to “rule” in on that part), and it was indeed in the minds of the drafters of the 14th, then what would matter is if Trump broke his crucial oath of office as did John B. Floyd.
Sorry for being incredibly lengthy in a TH-cam comment section reply, but I just thought it was important to properly understand the constitutional arguments at play in the video when citing something as seemingly important. (Which again as I said earlier it might come to be.)
Hopefully any of that was helpful and not just redundant for you as well lol.
@@hawtcookie9479 I just wrote a comment because he said he isn't sure if there is a legal definition of insurrection.
@@hawtcookie9479 Good summary on the double insurrection thingy.
One of these people is on the spectrum.
I agree with Both. Vote blue and let’s move on!
There’s no way I’m falling for that again. I’ll sit this one out- once the GOP reforms itself, second-rate administrations such as Biden’s will lose their mandate.
Vote RED and save our country.
A vote for any Democrat is a vote against the USA. I will never do that.
To short. The moderator seemed to favor one side over the other. "The polls" is not what elects the President. How many times has the plurality won at the polls?
The quibbling holds a dry bowl of water. Your position is enviable in your process to demonstrate how you catch a fart in one’s mittens, hence your 13th Amendment position.
What is the reason the words "President" and "Vice President" were stricken from the text of the 14th amendment? Were the authors saying that having a President or Vice President who engaged in insurrection or rebellion would be of benefit to the country? Of course not.
Come on guys stop confusing yourselves. Right at the beginning of section 3 of the 14th amendment it states clearly the words "No Person" which means if the president is not a person then this law should not apply to him....."Point To Ponder"
This having to be debated at all when the language in the constitution is as clear as anything ever was is why ive lost faith in our democracy.
Our democracy cant keep up with Trumps criminal acts. The only reason we still have a democracy is because of his rabid incompetence.
The Supreme Court of the United States should disqualify Trump not the Constitution, and all State Supreme Courts should do the same. There should be no judication about this. If a poor American can follow the Constitution, so can the very rich and educated, including lawyers.
If one holds an OFFICE he or she if the OFFICER of that OFFICE!
Obviously! No argument can realistically be made against this. It is self evident, like all the rights entitled in the Declaration of Independence
Mikasey is a corporate lawyer of the right-wing, and so there's money in his bank accout to perform this nonesense he's spewing. Not to exclude the fact that he is full of it.
On the other hand the good professor is in this because he's concerned about our democracy, while taking no monetary influences. In fact with the way universities are treating professors he may be putting his career on the line.
So the guy on the right is considered an expert on the Constitution? He can barely form an argument.
Okay, I'm willing to yield that there are arguments on both sides of the 'Officer' issue, but the Constitution doesn't require Congress to take action. And we're talking about the Congressional record so it says what it says.
Tell me, do you think he's immune? Doubt it.
There is no argument in this case, but one of bad faith.
No one should be a government elected official who has been convicted of a felony. The thought that this is fine and dandy is appalling.
There was a judge removed by the US Senate.
Since he wasn't banned from running for office, the voters made him a member of the House of Representatives.
Thank🙏🙏
Trumpie has been engaging in reprehensibly unbrillig behavior in the public eye The poem Jabberwocky will provide further clarity as to the reference.
Whatever you were trying to say was destroyed by typing ‘Trumpie”. Try again.
In reality, trump should not only be disqualified he should be in jail pending his criminal trials. The evidence against him is overwhelming and should be taken into consideration.
Analysis of this topic is frustrating because all of the evidence required to arrive at a conclusion either for- or against Trump 's personal involvement in the January 6 events, his violation of the 14th Amendment, and whether he is precluded from seeking re-election to public office -- is publicly available. "Engage", "support and or aid-and-comfort", "officer", "insurrection", the true elective power of the electoral college, "whether a formal conviction by congress is actually required for disqualification and whether that is enough to bar him", and the limitations of "Trump's free speech" can all be answered definitely...by ChatGPT. The only reason we have not arrived at an answer is politics, wokeness politics engineering, and political correctness.
Since there was never an insurrection or rebellion on Jan 6th, the entire argument is destroyed.
@@MS-ns2pjwhy’d those nice folks plea guilty to seditious conspiracy charges?
@@slyleprecon5521 A few people, who acted on their own, went too far. Most people plead guilty because they don’t think they can win in court. It doesn’t always mean that they’re guilty. If those people committed seditious conspiracy then they’ve been punished appropriately. Seditious conspiracy is not insurrection or rebellion. Nobody has been charged with insurrection for the events of that day because it was not an insurrection.
Source: 26 years and counting of law enforcement and courtroom experience. I’m currently a Sheriff’s Lieutenant in a large county.
Much of this frustrating "paralysis from analysis" derives from how poorly Sec. 3 is written and the fact that it's entire objective is partisan political management of who shall and shall not hold federal office in a reconstructed Union following the Civil War. It's simply BAD LAW, and it's bad law even if one is sympathetic to the motives held by the victorious Union forces. Insurrection was and always has been the most serious crime against a democratically elected government. Commission of that crime fairly DEMANDS criminal prosecution. But in it's stead and for a carefully crafted group of violators Congress fashioned a MERE civil penalty for one of it's most severe felonies. But again, if one finds that forgivable in 1868, how in the hell do you defend it in the year 2024 when the primary target of the "criminal complaint" is a single individual? If Trump committed an insurrection, then OF COURSE he should be CRIMINALLY prosecuted. But the lure of invoking Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment seems to be this fixation with permanent disqualification from office by the comparative ease of "self-executing" fanciful means. This is the fallacy. It's as if most people are unaware that criminal conviction under 18 USC 2383 ALSO CARRIES a MANDATORY disqualification from office, and it does so with much greater clarity of language than that contained in Sec. 3.
😂😂😂, scholars of law and constitution? I think their Kinney garden scholars. 14th amendment section 3 couldn't be any clearer.. its clearly states it, potus is a civil service position..
the supreme court is not the final arbiter. For the Supreme Court to be the arbiter of its own power asserts that the federal government’s only limitation is its own judgement and will. Such a premise would
negate the very existence of the Constitution that created the federal government. The
judiciary is just as limited in its power by the Constitution as the other two branches of
government.
02/16/24: RE: Trump vs. Anderson, et. al, is a case out of Colorado, currently being argued in the U.S. Supreme Court on 02/08/24: To make a long legal story short, both substantive and procedural due process has not been done in regards to determining whether Trump participated in "insurrection" (which also needs to be legally defined). Further, this is an issue of national concern, for which a State cannot make the decision on whether Trump is eligible to be on the ballot for the federal (emphasis supplied) election of the President of the United States. Hence, the State of Colorado lacks jurisdiction. Relatedly, and further, Congress is required to be involved, in the final determination in this 14th Amendment, Article 3 matter, & Congress has not been involved-- yet another due process violation on the part of the State of Colorado. My law topic videos coming soon to TH-cam. ; ) Another interesting case out of Oklahoma where State of Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction for someone running for federal office: "Bradshaw v. Oklahoma State Election Bd., 98 P.3d 1092".
Yeah, OK... a state trial court and a state Supreme Court -- both -- are going to hear and issue rulings on a monumental and widely-publicized case for which those courts have no jurisdiction.
You clearly misunderstand the subject-matter in its entirety. Every single assertion is just wrong.
all the wise people in D.C. well that just ruined it for him
When we speak of 'Running for Office' it is not the same as 'Running to catch a Bus' Running is -,applying for office' did he get the job or not. His intention is to work there. At the WhiteHouse.
if one looks up the origin of the word " office" ....
Nonsense. The constitution says that all executive power is vested in the president of United States. Many of his powers and discrettions are specified in the constitution.. then Congress passes has passed many many laws, creating agencies and officers, and giving them very powers and discretion. But all of those powers indiscretions are vested in the president, and are merely a ways in which he and Congress have facilitated the delegation of those powers. The critical point is when the president is acting in his official capacity, his acts cannot be criminalized because his authority and discretion to perform the act directly from the constitution. The constitution is the supreme law of the land, and trumps any attempt to diminish his authority. Further, when the Congress of the United States impeached as a president and then vines him, not guilty of insurrection on January 6 that establishes as a matter of constitutional law, that he is entitled and qualified to continue as president notwithstanding anything that occurred on January 6. Not finding by Congress and the constitutional effect which result supersedes any attempt by any lesser quart or entity to find him guilty of something on January 6.
Is the president an officer: lets also look at the federalist papers written by Alexander Hamilton.
In Federalist 69, about the executive, "The President of the United States would be an officer elected by the people for four years"
In Federalist 71, about the executive, "necessary to give to the officer himself the inclination and the resolution to act his part well"
In Federalist 76, about appointments by the president, "which might attend the absolute power of appointment in the hands of that officer would be avoided."
in Federalist 67, about appointments by the executive "to appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of United States whose appointments are NOT in the Constitution" - this suggests that "officers" is a generic term for those who serve in government.
The fact that phrasing was changed from one draft often has as much to do with style as content. So, that the words "the president" was stricken from a previous draft does not mean that its meaning was stricken. Look at the words being used, not at what was not used.
13 amendment.
Fourteenth amendment sec. 3. The thirteenth was about freeing the slaves
There were 2 points made by the gentleman arguing against keeping Donald Trump on the ballot and overturning the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court. Both are flawed. The first about the potential for violence that might be worse if SCOTUS upholds the Col. Court. The court CANNOT or rather SHOULD have their ruling be biased by the potential for civil unrest. The second argument is that he should be defeated at the polls. Does the gentleman really think that Donald Trump (and by extension his followers) will accept a decision other than his election? He will claim that the election was rigged, that his 4 indictments and 91 felony charges, his 2 civil cases were all part of a left wing conspiracy that prevented him from a proper election campaign.
I hope SCOTUS indeed makes an unbiased decision to keep Mr. Trump off the ballot. I believe section 3 of the 14th Amendment is as self-executing as keeping Taylor Swift or Arnold Schwarzenegger off the ballot.
This became first time in history of america has disqualified for trump.
*America
Some of the people here who have made the most illogical and ridiculous comments here have been the least gracious.
Congress is the legislative branch, the law-making branch. The executive branch is the branch charged with executing and enforcing the law.
The law professor made at least two arguments:
1. The historical context of the writing and debating of the text makes it clear that the president was in view here.
2. It would be nonsensical if it applied to offices with less power, but not to the president with more power than anybody else in government.
Since one person wrote off the law professor's briefs because they disliked the law professor's argument but didn't substantiate or buttress that view, we are left comparing a random commenter with the legal background of the professor.
The most obvious reason that the word convict or conviction doesn't appear in the text is that they didn't want that to be a requirement for the application of this passage. The historical context supports that conclusion. They would not want Jefferson Davis or Robert E Lee to be eligible to be president or to have their eligibility based upon a court which could in the South be sympathetic to their previous actions.
If a person is 33 years of age and won't turn 35 years of age by the day of the presidential election, then they are ineligible to hold the office of president. This is a requirement to be eligible to be president just as not having engaged in insurrection.
I remember and it wasn't that long ago that being a republican and we respected expertise and we valued the obvious reading of the text.
If you were in a political vacuum and away from the noise and all you had was the text and the historical context of the text as it was being written, debated, and confirmed what would you conclude that the authors meant and how would they have wanted it to be applied or not applied today?
If you were just reading the text in the most normal, obvious, common sense, straightforward approach and kept the historical context in mind, what would you conclude the text meant and how if at all would you conclude it should be applied in our day at this time?
I believe that these two questions are absolutely devastating to the Trump friendly interpretation of the text.
When highly respected jurists on both sides of the political spectrum agree about the meaning and application of the text in our present case and when you take into account that even two members of the Federalist Society agree with their interpretation and application of the text to Trump, then those taking the other side have to ask themselves if they are bearing a burden which they take to the text along with politically dominated glasses when they look at the text.
The fact that highly respected conservative jurists agree with this interpretation and application of this text must be fully wrestled with.
This ought to induce some humility on those on the other side who come across as arrogant and condescending as they possibly could. Given the stature and the expertise and the decades of studying this text for decades, a little humility might be in order.
That's especially true since they are taking the position least likely to be derived directly from the natural reading of the text and it's historical context.
If the 14th amendment cant stop him put your seatbelts on.
If Obama...
This discussion is interesting and meaningful. I am on the side of the professor sitting on the right on the screen. We shall follow the Justice process when we are not in the urgent situation. 😊
The last word couldn’t be better🎉😊
I'm for the professor on the left
was it disclosed that mukasey (older gentleman on the left) has represented trump in some of his current issues?
NO, NO every person, EVERY PERSON should have due process. To exclude Trump in some states and qualified in others will cause a constitutional crisis on a level we have never seen.
@@alanking6240 Fine. I agree. Ban Trump across the board; all 50 states. Uniformity rules. Happy? Or maybe, if you are still a constitutionalist, why not just put up a candidate other than Trump, who clearly disqualified himself on Jan 6 by inciting an insurrection?
This did not age well. Hopefully those that fell for your institution repays their loans in full.
The intent of the law no longer matters. It's the literal texture.
Lamenting “threats to democracy” while simultaneously advocating solutions that effectively disenfranchise 50% of U.S. voters is silly.
Chaz/chop was a clearer example of insurrection. How many days did the State allow it? Yet, how many were convicted of insurrection?
7 judges of the CO Supreme Court ruled.
All 7 were Democrats.
It went 4-3.
The three dissenting judges were quite clear. Their decision wasnt the final verdict.
But, their arguments are expected to be said before SCOTUS.
Were those 7 Democrats duly-appointed judges -- duly-appointed Supreme Court judges -- or were they not?
Is 4 a number that is greater than 3.... or is it not?
Is 4 a majority of 7.... or is it not?
Was the vote on insurrection unanimous -- 7-0 -- or was it not?
That is, did those 7 Supreme Court judges vote unanimously -- 7-0 -- on the subject of whether Trump's insurrection
had been proven at trial in the lower court by "clear and convincing evidence" .... or did they not?
A 7-0 state Supreme Court majority ruling that THE FACT of Trump's Insurrection had been established by "clear and convincing evidence"
is the clearest authoritative statement on record -- to date -- of Trump's Insurrection.
Q.E.D.
Why does what the dissenters say have any relevance?
How about due process and innocent until proven guilty. There hasnt even been any kind of conviction.
Guilty is a matter for criminal trials where consequences involve loss of liberty. Not being able to run for president isn't depriving somebody of their liberty. Even if it was, where's the due process for tens of millions of people under 35 who can't run?
Lock him up trump
Mukasey had a full diaper and a vacuous occipital lobe during the interlocution. His folderol places him in the same category as Monsieur Giuliani.
Particularly fulsome and odious at 44:38
( I come all this way and find a Chaturvedi ? )
The office/officer argument is truly redundant and asinine as well as the other minutiae brought up by the Trump's team such as self-executing. The salient point here is that Trump has not been convicted of rebellion or insurrection or the aiding and abetting of such. 18 US Code SS 2383 is a federal matter that's ultimately left to what the Supreme Court decides. Until then, Trump is innocent whose actions have not met the definition of S3 of the 14th Amendment.
On a separate note, even if Trump is found to have engaged in such activities, S3 of the 14th doesn't prevent him from running for president. Removing him from the ballot based on this section is a point-blank misinterpretation and misapplication of the Constitution. He can be barred from holding the office after winning the election, just like a banned athlete will remain on the bench pending a sports committee review. According to section 3, the Congress is vested with the authority and the final say on this matter through a vote, not the states via ballot tampering.
Of course the President is an officer!
The relevant section of the 14th Amendment, Section 3, reads as follows:
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
For Trump to be disqualified under the 14th Amendment, it would likely require a legal process and possibly a decision by the courts, including potentially the Supreme Court, to interpret the meaning and application of the term "engagement in insurrection or rebellion" in this context. As of my last update, no such legal process had definitively resolved the question.
And despite what many scholars are saying, including Akhil Amar (who I admire), the "officer" argument has plenty of weight behind it and 3 Colorado (Democrat-appointed) supreme court justices agreed. So did several other states.
Did Trump engage in or aid in an insurrection or rebellion?
He can be sued for inciting a mob but that isn't the same as an insurrection or rebellion.
Please excuse any unknown ignorance on my part.
Good job making up the need for additional process. ANY other civic official, one set of rules. President Schitty Trump, another. Wah wah.
Did Trump engage or aid in a rebellion or insurrection? I believe that has been ruled on. If not, excuse my ignorance. Trump is able to be sued for creating a riot but I don't believe that will be seen as a rebellion or insurrection.
Also, my last comment mentioning the same as above, was deleted by someone besides myself.
insurrection
noun
in·sur·rec·tion ˌin(t)-sə-ˈrek-shən
Synonyms of insurrection
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government
Fonzie won this debate
Gosh ... Text is made up of 'words'. Any 'word' can be looked up in a dictionary and there may be ONE or SEVERAL 'meanings' of the 'word'.
And then people use the 'word' (with different meanings), or mis-use the 'word'. Then there are connotations, implications, denotations, innuendo, and nonsense.
The Constitution is NOT a fixed document ... that is insane. The constitution is NOT a Bible, Torah, Quran, Bhagavad-gita or other religious text... it's a social and political document THAT HAS BEEN AMENDED!
If trump is eligible to be president then this is scary beyond belief.
He fomented people to act on his behalf to stop the peaceful transfer of power. Trump KNEW HE LOST! He Markets 'fake' as 'real'... What sells better? "I lost" or "stop the steal?"
The Courts must stop him.
MAGA Camp/Supporters will dismiss these facts, it’s beyond comprehension lol…
Good work btw 💪🏻
Being very badly moderated favoring a rabid Republican operative over the decades than a more professorial person with deeper scholarship.
Biden’s best chance for re-election is a rematch with tRump
In your dreams
Nobody in their right mind would ever vote for Biden. Anyone that can’t figure out how to type Trump should never be taken seriously.
@@MS-ns2pj Whoosh
@@martinstephens4633 Yes, I am aware of why some Democrats do that. They’re painfully immature. I also understood why the original poster said Trump is the best chance for Biden. I strongly disagree, based on the facts. I’ve been an adult since I was 15’ but I deal with enough children and overgrown children to recognize and understand their behavior. So, rather than failing to get it, I understood it, recognized it for what it is, and decided to respond to it.
@@MS-ns2pjwhy did Donald travel with Epstein 7 times? With young girls onboard?
Akhil Amar needs to look back at his history concerning the 14th amendment section 3, he is leaving out extremely important facts as to why the president was excluded. Jefferson Davis was disqualified from holding office because he held the office of governor of Arkansas. The whole idea of this amendment was to save Jefferson Davis from being hung for treason which the 39th congress felt the south would rise up again if Davis was executed. There is more history concerning Reverdy Johnson. These people are suppose to be scholars but are extremely dumb when it comes to the history.
Are you a tenured Professor at Yale ? Where did you get your law degree from ?
@@doom-driveneap4569 UCF
A group of historians, well-versed in the era and the Amendment, filed an amicus brief with the SCOTUS that addresses your concerns. You ought to read it. They do not agree with your analysis and provide evidence for their claims.
The first guy needs to calm down. He’s too emotional and the emotion takes away from his points.
He was frustrated having to argue with people who either didn't read his brief or continued to hold positions that were in opposition to facts presented in his brief.
@@JoshuaFranta Based on his arguments, his brief isn’t worth the read.
@@JoshuaFranta Yes, I know. I'm just saying that his ideas (which I happen to agree with) will come across better if he practices more self-control.
My theory is that the 1L student who triggered Amar is a plant, knew Amar or knew of him and how to get his goat.
Sure! So the president is above the law, this old fart should also be held accountable
Commanding officer
Sry, after the first question was put to the guyI heard a long suck up and lengthy bootlicking. At 5:09 he still had not directly addressed the question asked, which was the whole topic and the whole point. I quit watching, whether or not a Rube has grouse legal credentials I do not have sphinx-like patience nor a gut of iron to swallow pure bs.
Thought I would add that. And dock his gratuity, calculate every extra word he took to get to the point at hollywood rates. Then dock it from the fee. This is why the courts are so tied up.
very low level discussion … and lady … can you drink more quietly please
I agree. Suggesting Jefferson Davis were to run for President of the United States was an absurd notion. It's like saying Adolf Hilter wanted to be elected Prime Minister of Isreal.
You failed your word association pretty bad here lol. In the video specific conversations were cited when this was mentioned. Also Davis had already been elected as a congressman- it's that oath that he violated- and it was specifically discussed they didn't want him serving in congress either if he wasn't jailed for treason (hence 14th disqualification for ANY office under the united states).
Or that Donald Trump run for POTUS
Muck-asey
Dweeb
Section 5 of the 14th Amendment provides the remedy for someone convicted of insurrection.
No one has been charged with insurrection, let alone convicted of insurrection.
Neither of those things is mentioned in the 14th section 3.
@@richardhoner7842 14th section 5. Read the entire Amendment kid.
TRUMP2024
@@imperialmotoring3789 I have. I think along the lines of this amicus brief. Start at page 8. www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/299107/20240129171610494_23-719_Amici%20Brief.pdf. I find it telling that Trump's own legal team makes no mention of Section 5.
Wouldnt we have to declare trump supporters enemies of the state? What enemies was he aiding and comforting?
Enemies of the state…people who did not support the insurrection and who did not wish the lawful election to be overturned merely because Trump wanted to stay President.
Those who were insurrecting at the capital. Use common sense
Uh.. ah.. em.. uh ahh emmm emmm emmmm… umm.. ummmmm .. uhhhhhhhh
I AM A HUMAN BEING AND I CHOOSE TO PRIORITIZE THAT I BE ABLE TO CREATE RELATIONSHIPS PRIVATE AND ABSOLUTE PRIVACY THAT I AM BEING DENIED TO BUILD A SUPPORT A SYSTEM THAT EVEN POWs OR ANY AND EVERY PRISONER HAS THAT IS NOT CONFINED INTO THE LESS INHUMANE SOLITARY CONFINEMENT AND ISOLATION.
OK.
Welcome to Planet Earth. 🙂💐🫶🏼🍷
which brand is your favourite tinfoil?
Why are you screaming?
impossible to understand a word Amar is saying… is so incoherent … should be a doorman not in academia
Impossible...for you.
I love Harvard law school.
No. The American people get to speak in this democracy. If they want Trump, they should be able to choose him. Our system is robust enough to withstand a Trump presidency without the “fantastic” Harvard scholars great help.
The exercise of disqualification has the potential to strengthen a democracy; I would vote for disqualification. Though, I do agree with you and let the people vote for what ails the nation. Swayed beyond the hubris of a blustery bully, 45.
Then ignore the constitution- every decision should be up to the voters?
@@DeckerCreekAnd while we are at it get rid of the supreme Court Congress as a whole on both the state and federal level because the people would choose
@@patrickzink2191, we are a country based on rules and laws. If the people want to change the law, ok but right now Trump broke the law. He should be accountable, otherwise else there will be chaos.
I have 3 potential presidential candidates that I want to vote for.
1) One is only 30 years old
2) The other was born outside the US and became a naturalized US citizen
3) The other is a US citizen, but was born abroad, and has never lived in the US.
Oh wait, the Constitution says that none of these 3 people are eligible to become president. Well, let's just forget the Constitution and let these people run and potentially win and become president.
Same thing for the 14th Amendment. Why let the Constitution get in the way of doing things in the USA?
Does it require guilt of insurrection, the person on the end in a Federal court since the office of the President is a Federal election.
Has Trump been found guilty in a Federal Court of Insurrection ????
The one lawyer is applying a,standard based on feeling of hate ( you guilty because I don't like you) ridiculous.
Wrong. Based on the fact that Don Syphilis tried to subvert the 2020 election. And that´s just the most obvious.
A conviction isn't necessary bc it's a disqualification which is not a criminal penalty. For it to be a criminal penalty, it would need to take life, liberty, or property. Disqualifying bc someone is too young, not a natural born citizen, not here 14 years, impeached and removed, or engaged in insurrection are disqualifications, not criminal penalties, and therefore require a civil suit, not a criminal suit.
@@PrevailVideos even civil suits require adequate due process. Which has not happened here. The whole thing is moot anyway since theres no evidence an insurrection occurred much less that President Trump engaged in one.
@Jackaccount There was a hearing at the district court where Trump provided evidence and there was opportunity for his team to provide more evidence, but they supplied all they wanted. Regarding whether there was an insurrection, Trump's lawyers have abandoned even arguing it wasn't an insurrection. They argued that in the lower courts, but in their brief to the Supreme Court they left it off. That's a classic sign of implicitly acknowledging that they lost that legal point. Trump can still win on a technicality. Most think he will.