General Discussion

Fiendish Thingy

(21,004 posts)

7. Meanwhile, back in the real world...

Reply to Prairie_Seagull (Original post)

Mon Aug 14, 2023, 10:49 AM

Aug 2023

Only eight people have been disqualified under the 14th Amendment since the civil war, and all of them either served in the Confederate Army or had convictions relevant to insurrection or rebellion.

Donald Trump will not be disqualified under the 14th amendment without first being convicted of a relevant offence, regardless of arguments about the amendment being “self executing”.

Yes, I know the constitution says nothing about requiring a conviction, but if each state were to find a sympathetic judge to disqualify Trump, using judicial authority alone, then Dems should prepare for a wave of MAGA judges using their authority to disqualify dozens, if not hundreds of Democratic candidates.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

34 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The constitutional case that Donald Trump is already banned from being president [View all] Prairie_Seagull Aug 2023 OP

That idea floated on DU more than 18 months ago bucolic_frolic Aug 2023 #1

It's everwhere as of 3 days ago. Thought it had merit. nt Prairie_Seagull Aug 2023 #2

It does have merit, your post is fine. bucolic_frolic Aug 2023 #4

Nothing in the Constitution requires such a conviction. Hermit-The-Prog Aug 2023 #3

History, and reality says it does require a conviction Fiendish Thingy Aug 2023 #9

You may want to check recent history. Hermit-The-Prog Aug 2023 #14

So who's been disqualified without trial in the last 150+ years? Polybius Aug 2023 #17

I don't understand the question or its basis. Hermit-The-Prog Aug 2023 #18

No court would disqualify Trump from running without coviction Polybius Aug 2023 #19

That's a bold statement unsupported by facts. Hermit-The-Prog Aug 2023 #20

Facts are you're getting you hops up for nothing Polybius Aug 2023 #21

You're still confusing me. The 14th A says nothing about a conviction for anything. Hermit-The-Prog Aug 2023 #22

But in the real world.. Fiendish Thingy Aug 2023 #26

Griffin was disqualified *after* he was convicted. Nt Fiendish Thingy Aug 2023 #25

The New Mexico case of the Jan 6 participant disallowed from run for public office by civil lawsuit hlthe2b Aug 2023 #5

Agree. The debate is how it is enforced. bucolic_frolic Aug 2023 #6

The nominated vp would be the candidate..... getagrip_already Aug 2023 #13

The New Mexico case required a conviction before the judge would rule Fiendish Thingy Aug 2023 #8

Not insurrection charges. hlthe2b Aug 2023 #12

The charges were related to January 6. Nt Fiendish Thingy Aug 2023 #27

Yes. But if you (as others) are claiming charges must be specifically insurrection to activate hlthe2b Aug 2023 #29

I'm not saying one must be convicted specifically of insurrection to be disqualified Fiendish Thingy Aug 2023 #33

No, it did not. Hermit-The-Prog Aug 2023 #15

The judge did not rule until after he was convicted. Fiendish Thingy Aug 2023 #28

Go back and read paragraph #50 again Fiendish Thingy Aug 2023 #30

Meanwhile, back in the real world... Fiendish Thingy Aug 2023 #7

Please list the "dozens, if not hundreds of Democratic candidates" who are insurrectionists. Hermit-The-Prog Aug 2023 #16

That would be up to the MAGA judges to decide, wouldn't it? Fiendish Thingy Aug 2023 #32

The constitutional case for Trump being ineligible was already made--by Donald Trump DFW Aug 2023 #10

K&R. William769 Aug 2023 #11

Seems to me the impracticality of this needs to be addressed. Prairie_Seagull Aug 2023 #23

County commisioner removed by judge for Jan 6 illegal activity. Prairie_Seagull Aug 2023 #24

I guess you all know that 40 or 50 pro-Nazis were prosecuted... TreasonousBastard Aug 2023 #31

The lawsuits attempting to enforce this holding will be fun to watch LetMyPeopleVote Aug 2023 #34