The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Guest Essay in the New York Times on Section 3 and Disqualification
S.B. Tillman and I have published a Guest Essay in the New York Times on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment and disqualification. It is titled, Only the Feds Could Disqualify Madison Cawthorn and Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Here is the introduction:
The events of Jan. 6, 2021, are casting a long shadow over the midterm elections. Voters in North Carolina are seeking to bar Representative Madison Cawthorn from running for re-election to his House seat, and those in Georgia are trying to do the same to Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene.
These voters have filed complaints with state elections officials arguing that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies members of Congress who engage in insurrection from appearing on the congressional ballot. (Challenges to other elected officials have also begun.)
But these challenges face an intractable problem: Only the federal government — not the states — can disqualify insurrectionists from congressional ballots. States cannot unilaterally create procedures, unless authorized by federal statute, to keep accused insurrectionists off the congressional ballot.
If these members of Congress engaged in insurrection, then the U.S. House of Representatives may exclude them, or federal prosecutors may charge them with the federal crime of insurrection. But in light of an important 1869 judicial decision, the cases against Mr. Cawthorn and Ms. Greene — which are currently mired in both state and federal proceedings — cannot remove the candidates from the congressional ballot.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Question: I presume state election officials can keep off the ballot candidates for federal office who, for example, do not meet the age requirements.
If so, how is that different from election officials keeping off the ballot candidates such as Greene and Cawthorn for not satisfying other criteria for federal office, such as not engaging in insurrection? (leaving aside the question of whether their activities indeed amounted to insurrection).
If I remember correctly Blackman's view is that they can't.
Maybe you need a conviction first.
The answer is that insurrection is a kind of offense, analogous to a crime. It is not a simple matter of status. Unlike age, residence, etc., it carries an implication of guilt and imposes a permanent bar to holding office.
For this reason, it should carry strong Due Process protections. It should require some kind of trial, not just an administrative hearing.
There are several offences to do with insurrection, but there's nothing in the Constitution to suggest that any of them necessarily have the same definition as the term as used in section 3.
As for due process, that would be a better argument if people had a "life, liberty, or property" interest in holding political office. And even then it would make all sorts of assumptions about how one bit of the constitution relates to another.
On the other hand, opponents have great motivation to screetch insurrection-disable-my-opponent. If screetching were enough, that's a problem.
The thing age, residence, and insurrection have in common is the infraction should be obvious to all, to prevent scurrilous gaming of politics.
While people can question the factiness of documentation, that it says one thing or another is obvious. For insurrection, clearly not so, sans conviction, or even charges.
Fortunately then that it isn't. If the authorities refuse to put you on the ballot because they take the view that you're ineligible for some reason, I should hope there is some legal recourse that would be available to you. But I don't see why section 3 would be any different than the other grounds of ineligibility, like age and term limits.
I am not an expert on this, but I don't think the state does (or is supposed to do) an independent verification of the qualifications of candidates for office. For party candidates, I believe they are just supposed to include whoever the party tells them is their candidate, and for independent candidates, whoever provides the proper paperwork.
The age qualification is a less-charged issue. We learned in law school that this is most likely an unenforceable provision at law. Rather, it would be up to the House or Senate to refuse to seat the prospective member. Basically, it is a self-regulatory provision.
Well, then there's your answer.
Let’s just say that a society where having an abortion or casual sex with a stranger is a fully constitutionally protected liberty interest, but where the administration can simply bar its political rivals from running for office at whim because there is no constitutional right to run for office and it gets no constitutional protection at all, is a society whose values and priorities are very, very different from the ones the framers of our constitution envisioned.
The framers would have regarded the right to participate in government as far more fundamental than these other things.
where the administration can simply bar its political rivals from running for office at whim
What do you think gerrymandering is?
It's not that.
It has the same effect.
How?
Please explain how adjusting the borders of a district within a state can forever prevent someone from running for office in any district?
Why is it not a property interest? Congressmen get paid. If you are over 25 (or over 30 for a Senator) and are a citizen, you are qualified. Now someone says, no you are not, because you participated in an insurrection. You dispute that. So how is that not a protectible interest?
Not to mention that the voters have a liberty interest in electing whom they want to represent them.
I think a better way to look at it is to recognize it as a fundamental right. It is the the flip side to the right to vote.
Where does it say that?
The 9th amendment
Works for me. (See below in one of my comments from yesterday.)
It isn't analogous to a crime it is a crime, and one of the penalties for the crime, as set by Congress, is disqualification from federal office.
Section 3 is not the only applicable section, there is also section 5 of the 14th:
"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
I think that makes Tillman and Blackman's assertion of federal exclusivity a slam dunk: Congress has the power, and Congress has acted to assert that power.
Your argument would be stronger if there was some obligation on Congress to enforce/implement section 3. But there isn't, just like there isn't for the rest of the 14th amendment. It's all self-enforcing.
Congress already revoked it with the Amnesty of 1872
Whether that amnesty operated prospectively is a disputed issue. A federal district court in North Carolina says yes; another district court in Georgia says no.
Congress did not regard that 1872 amnesty as any impediment to its refusing to seat Victor Berger in 1919 and again in 1920.
Insurrection is nowhere defined in the USC, as far as I have been able to find. If it is a crime, what are the elements?
Read the article. It's because A14.3 is not self-executing. Without federal legislation implementing it it has no effect.
Remember that there are several other arguments against it too, such as the Amnesty Act's language. But this argument says the section never went into effect because Congress never made legislation to do so, sufficing with each house's own power not to seat elected members who fell foul of it.
Well then it's settled, because Title 18 USC:
"§2383. Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
It seems to me that is clearly an act that has an effect.
So we need to go through the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to decide who is an insurrectionist.
Uh, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not define crimes.
What is the definition of rebellion, and what is the definition of insurrection? You have to be on notice somehow.
@Milhouse: How do you get that from "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress (...), who, having previously taken an oath (...) 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."
Because it also says that Congress shall have the authority to implement this article through appropriate legislation, and that's what the legislation said.
To survive, college students must have study materials on hand to cope with stress and demands.
Which editor(s) will get fired this time for allowing the editorial page to publish an opinion that is unpopular in the newsroom? Or is this effectively part of Dean Baquet's goodbye kiss?
I’d actually like to see the NYT become the Extreme Liberal Marxist Left caricature all the rightwing numpties believe it is. Even for a weekend.
Well, I was going to direct you to a sampling of the most-upvoted "NYT picks" reader comments as a rough proxy of the true tone behind the curtain, but interestingly enough NYT seems to have disabled comments for this particular editorial.
Doesn’t matter anyway goofball.
Doesn't matter to you, I'm sure. But even the New York Times itself reached the shocking conclusion that newspapers are at bottom businesses that adapt their product to meet their customers' preferences. So if the occasional fig-leaf editorial like this one is carpet-bombed with screaming comments by those customers, that's relevant objective data.
Sure thing goofball.
Persuasive!
What do you think I’m trying to persuade you of goofball?
Oh, good point. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were actually trying to make a defensible argument, rather than just dicking around enjoying the chattering of your keyboard.
I’ve never once considered giving you the same. And you’ve never once given me any doubt as to whether I should.
Well then it's back to the echo chamber with you, laddie. Have fun!
Ok groomer.
Did you see Michael's fan-fiction that Otis was replying to?
Attempting to bring in 'well look at the reader comments' is some weak-ass tea.
Fan fiction? The allusion was clear to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention.
So I take it you're playing dumb as usual.
Which does not make it any less nonsense to generalize off of.
Bennet followed Weiss. Maybe the third time will make Sarcastr0 about this is enemy action, but I'm not betting on it.
No. A third anecdote (over how long?) does not a generalized truth make.
And Weiss being driving out due to her views is *her* take, but not everyone's.
I remember the sad day Bret Stephens said something favorable about Trump. Never again!
Ah yes.
The NYT publishes something Michael P likes, so he immediately assumes the worst.
Come out of your hole and you might learn that there are plenty of liberals who think the paper bends over far too backwards to be fair to the right.
Just FYI.
I have not a shred of doubt that's true. But the fact that there are plenty of lefty frothers that would prefer the right be treated as Dalit says nothing about the objective partisan balance of the paper.
The point is that your righty frothing also proves nothing objective.
The New York Times favors reason, science, tolerance, modernity, inclusiveness, progress, education, and the reality-based world.
That means many conservatives are not going to like the Times.
Those conservatives have OAN, Fox, the Volokh Conspiracy, FreeRepublic, RedState, Instapundit, Stormfront, Hot Air, Gateway Pundit, Newsmax, and other right-wing sources when they want to consume content favorable to backwardness, bigotry, superstition ignorance, insularity, dogma, and other conservative preferences.
It is a marketplace of ideas. In general, the better ideas -- and the better people -- prevail in America. At least, that is what we have observed for 50 or 60 years.
"plenty of liberals who think the paper bends over far too backwards to be fair to the right"
No doubt, liberals believe a lot of objectively false things.
Liberals believe a lot of objectively false things.
Republicans are superstitious, ignorant, lying bigots concentrated in desolate rural and southern backwaters.
Where is the hope for America?
(Answer: The continuing victories of the liberal-libertarian mainstream in the glorious American culture war.)
There are liberals who thought the WH press corps were being too nice to Trump because they never once tried smuggling a bomb into one of his press conferences, or even rushed the podium to attack him.
It's easy to think they're bending over backwards when you think standing straight requires an all out assault.
Tell us about the wonderful media you pay attention to.
"there are plenty of liberals who think the paper bends over far too backwards to be fair to the right"
You are comparing apples and oranges. If the Times were not so monolithic and intensely partisan, you would see examples or bias and slant in favor of "right wing" positions from time to time in their news reporting. Since 2016, I'd be surprised if you could even find a handful. I honestly cannot recall seeing a single one, and I read at least the weekend editions pretty regularly.
The most publicized example is the full-blast coverage the paper gave the Clinton e-mail story in 2016.
They also published a lot of dubious stuff supporting the Iraq War.
Yeah - Just two examples!!
Well, that's what comes to mind immediately.
Tell us, how often do RW media publish anything that would support liberal views?
And of course there is some burden on the NYT's RW critics to show a "monolithic and intensely partisan" LW slant in its news. I don't think you can do that.
And not agreeing with Fox News or other RW alternative fact factories is not supporting evidence.
Here's the thing, Ridgeway.
I specified "Since 2016" as shorthand for since the election of Trump. I am also not talking about RW media sites -- I'll concede that most of them are indeed partisans of the Right. But the Times still pretends to be unbiased and non-partisan.
The Iraq war was the only example I could think of, but it was way before Trump. Also, in the lead-up to the war, it was not a purely left/right issue. A lot of politicians have significant selective amnesia about that.
Similarly, the Times was against Hillary early on, but only because they favored other D candidates. Once she became the nominee, she got the Times' full support.
On the other hand, it took me about 45 seconds of looking to find the following in today's Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/20/us/politics/trump-hotel-sale-washington.html
Sub-Headline: The $375 million sale of a Washington hotel that served as an influence and access bazaar for lawmakers, administration officials and other Trump allies is slated to be finalized this month.
Text (with the "of sorts" qualifier that makes the headline untrue): The hotel — which for much of President Donald J. Trump’s four years at the White House served as his dining-out spot, a gathering place for his allies and a bazaar of sorts for those seeking influence and access — is slated to be sold in the coming days to a Florida investor group that will take down the Trump name and rebrand it as a Waldorf Astoria.
Further text: The hotel generated millions of dollars in direct payments to Mr. Trump’s family, starting from even before he was sworn in, as his own inaugural committee paid the venue more than $1 million.
First off, that is not what "direct payments" are. Second, of course it generated money for its owners. That is what hotels are supposed to do. Third, was there something improper about the inauguration? Was it above market? What the Times is doing is classic bias. Implying wrongdoing without providing sufficient evidence to judge the allegation.
According to the federal court decision released recently, Georgia authorities have put the burden on the challengers to prove disqualification. I expect they will fail, by which I mean no more and no less than that their challenge will not be sustained by the last court to hear the case. A post on Election Law Blog criticized the federal judge for relying too much on precedent related to presidential electors, whose selection is subject to greater regulation by the state. I think the decision to effectively abstain, by not granting an injunction, without formally abstaining is nevertheless correct. Greene has an adequate state law process and the inconvenience of having to defend herself is not on its own a 1983 case.
Only the federal government — not the states — can disqualify insurrectionists from congressional ballots.
The Federal Government already did, that's what section 3 of the 14th amendment is. By its plain language it is directly effective without any further need for anyone to take any implementing actions.
Well, then obviously the citizens don't need to do anything, smart guy.
They need to print ballots correctly, with omissions where required.
Making citizens responsible for printing ballots is quite the throwback, Stephen.
Elections are run by the sovereign People, using government as an instrumentality. When government loses track of that, and presumes power to order citizens around to affect election outcomes, that should be treated as criminal conduct by the officials involved. The nation ought to make the laws necessary to put government officials on notice, and then enforce them.
Per Judge Totenberg's opinion, Georgia officials are taking the position that Ms. Greene's name will remain on the ballot even if she is disqualified, but votes cast for her will not be counted.
On that theory, we've already convicted murderers by having statutes prohibiting murder, so no further action is needed before introducing them to Old Sparky.
I find your position a bit lacking in due process.
What insurrection?
How about we have an evidentiary hearing to determine whether an insurrection occurred and whether the challenged member of Congress engaged therein?
No, participation in an insurrection is a kind of offense, and being deprived of an opportunity to hold office is a severe deprivation of linerty. Everybody accused of an offense and subjected to a severe deprivation of linerty is entitled to due process of law including a fair trial, the opportunity to confront the witnesses against them, present witnesses in their favor, be represented by counsel, etc.
I agree that the constitution doesn’t say that only the feds can enforce the clause, however.
That makes sense, but of course it's a different argument from the one made by Blackman and Tillman. At least I think so, their full article is behind a paywall for me.
Read the article. Griffin's case says the section is not self-executing, and requires legislation to implement it. Maybe that case was wrongly decided, but that's an argument that must be made.
Well, Section 5 does say, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article"; That does plausibly mean that it's not self-executing.
OTOH, the 13th amendment has the same clause, and does anybody think it isn't self executing?
I think you're on a lot stronger grounds insisting on due process, rather than insisting that it's unenforceable without a Congressional statute.
By that logic, the due process clause (of section 1) is also not self-executing. Paradox!
Then what is section 5 all about?
Creating new powers for Congress, that it may or may not choose to exercise? (And historically has mostly not.)
When were these two found guilty of insurrection?
A criminal finding is not needed.
I think this bar should be set high, and I actually think if MTG gets disqualified, it'll open a whole can of worms.
But I'm mostly glad this is getting some precedents on the books.
Well I agree somewhat, a criminal finding would not be needed IF Congress passed legislation to that effect. But the legislation they did pass requires a conviction.
There's no need for a guilty verdict. Indeed suppose someone really did participate in an insurrection (e.g. if a Dem congressperson personally participated in an Antifa riot or in setting up an "autonomous zone"), but the president pardoned them; they'd still be ineligible under A14.3, but no conviction would be possible. So obviously no conviction is necessary.
The argument being made in this article is that what is necessary to keep someone off a ballot is legislation by congress. Without it A14.3's only effect is to give the incoming House grounds on which it could vote not to seat Greene (assuming she's reelected). It can't keep her from being reelected in the first place.
Why not?
Nothing in the Constitution provides a procedure for how insurrectionism is determined.
It seems to me the primary problem is Due Process. You need a serious level of Due Process for a deprivation of core constitutional rights. I would think an administrative proceeding would be inadequate, you’d need a court, and likely a trial with criminal-level protections. But if the state provides that, there’s nothing in the Constitution that says it can’t do it. Supreme Court appelate review ensures the trial is fair.
I think we're on the same page actually.
Requiring criminality might be good policy - you make a good case for that - but it's not constitutionally required that I can see (your due process argument is more prudential than explicit)
Yes, there's certainly a lot of originalism and textualism that's suddenly going out the window here.
There should be a very significant process involved before disqualifying sometime from being elected by the people. If you think a civil suit in some random state court is sufficient for that purpose, make that argument. I don't think "some people said something" is going to comport with the First Amendment when it comes to proving that they "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the US.
Why? Do you have a liberty or property right in holding office, or having the option to?
I would argue that being able to run for office is just as important as being able to vote for that office.
Me too. But the constitution doesn't treat them the same.
Ridegeway, office is a gift which the sovereign People may bestow or withhold at pleasure. Voting is a sovereign power, inherent in every member of the joint sovereignty. So not alike at all.
Stephen -- you have a very, shall we say, idiosyncratic view of the constitution and the nature of our government.
Actually Ridgeway, my view of the Constitution—and especially of the role of sovereignty—is one I borrowed from the founders. What I wrote above you could find nearly verbatim from founders James Madison, Ben Franklin, or, especially, James Wilson.
Wilson by the way, was Jefferson's probable source for key parts of the Declaration of Independence. Large parts of the draft of the Constitution came via the Committee of Detail, and were written in Wilson's hand. For neglected historical influence, Wilson seems to be the leading contender among the founders.
You are right, though, that my views look idiosyncratic to folks whose only knowledge of that history came to them in K–12 classes, where a great deal of the founding historical record had been forgotten generations ago. I made up that deficiency in graduate school, where my views were not taken as idiosyncratic.
There is no explicit right to vote in the Constitution. But if anyone CAN vote, the right cannot be denied to women, guys over 18, etc.
You, and people who want to vote for you, have a First Amendment right to run for office. See, for instance, Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983)
Its not unlimited, states can impose reasonable limits [filing deadlines etc.] but that should be enough to trigger due process.
The question here is not whether due process applies, but what is the process that is due.
Martinned is denying that there is any due process right here.
Michael: "There should be a very significant process involved"
"Why? Do you have a liberty or property right in holding office, or having the option to?"
Seems like a PDP not an SDP issue, but I'll leave it to Martinned to clarify.
Aren't we talking about procedure?
It would be easier just to agree he's wrong.
If it's pure PDP, he has a point about the lack of a hook. But if you use SDP you can get around that need.
Hang on, are you saying that the 1st Amendment constrains the 14th amendment? Because that's certainly one way to go.
I'm not sure that I would have picked the 1st amendment, but I'm happy to concede that you have a constitutional right to run for office. I just dispute that it has anything to do with liberty for the purposes of the due process clause.
If a constitutional right to run for office exists, then there must logically be constitutional limits on the kinds of things Congress and the states can do to (incidentally) burden that right. But none of that has any implications for limits set on the right to run for office by the Constitution itself.
I think there pretty clearly IS a constitutional 1st amendment right to "run for" office, since running for office just consists of exercise of 1st amendment rights in a manner intended to get people to vote for you.
The right actually implicated by keeping somebody off the ballot is the right to VOTE, not the right to run for office.
I'll remind people that, at the time the Constitution was adopted, and for a long while afterwards, there wasn't any such thing as "ballot access", because the government was not printing ballots, and so was not in a position to keep anybody off the ballot. If you had the right to vote at that time, you could vote for anybody you damned well pleased, regardless of what the government wanted. You'd write down their name yourself, or maybe use a pre-printed ticket offered by the candidate or their party.
It was only with the innovation of the government printing ballots for the voters, that "ballot access" became an issue, because the government immediately began abusing that convenience to limit who you could easily vote for. Even then, for most of the nation's history you could still write in somebody's name, and have it counted.
Even now, only a few states have the nerve to deny people the right to write in candidates not on the ballot.
The right to vote, as originally understood, (And still, from an originalist standpoint.) is the right to vote for anybody you want. Not for anybody the government gives you permission to vote for.
Now, the government can certainly refuse to count votes for candidates who aren't qualified for an office. But I'd argue, have argued above, that denying a candidate ballot access is an abuse, and a violation of the voter's right to vote, not the candidate's right to run.
Currently, Alabama, Delaware, Iowa, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, and Wyoming permit you to write in any name you want, and have it counted. (Voting as originally understood.)
33 states presume to restrict write-in voting to registered candidates. (In California, at least, only in the primary, write in votes are banned in the real election.)
Arkansas, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina and South Dakota don't permit write-in voting at all.
It should be pretty obvious that the people in office can’t simply claim their opponents are disqualified from running against them based on nothing but their one-sided say so.
If that was constitutional, why bother having elections? They would be Soviet-style elections with only one name allowed on the ballot.
If there was no constitutional right to run for office, that would be permissable.
If originalism permits that, originalism is an ass. Saying originalism permits this result is an argument against originalism.
I don’t think any reasonable or reputable originalist would say that people can be barred from running from office without any right to process to contest it.
A reasonable originalist could say that people can be barred from office by the People themselves, but not by government. Office is not a right, but a gift which the sovereign People bestow or withhold at pleasure. That puts questions of office beyond the purview of governments, and withdraws them from the set of private liberties.
With that as predicate, you have to somehow figure out whether the People's constitutional decree that insurrectionists be barred from office needs some subsequent process to say who is an insurrectionist, and if so, who or what body the Constitution has empowered to conduct that process.
Given the ambiguity of the wording, and of the subsequent legal record, it is a question which looks like it cannot be answered either correctly or mistakenly, but only arbitrarily—at least until congress steps in to use its constitutional authorization to settle the question. Until then, a coin toss could legitimately stand in for any argument.
Holding office? No. Being on the ballot, and representing the district after winning the general election? Yes, there are all kinds of rights there. US federal election law is somewhat tangled, but there are equal protection, petition of government, political association, and free speech rights involved.
"Why? Do you have a liberty or property right in holding office, or having the option to?"
Well I have to vote this as one of the most idiotic questions I've ever seen here.
Kazinski, to me, it does not seem such an easy question. Can you explain? From what you say above I am unable to discern whether you posit a right in holding office, or the negative of that.
This comment mixes up should and must like whoa.
Figure out which you mean and stick to it.
Find somebody else's nits to pick, like the person who claimed that this section of the 14A was self-executing in spite of not identifying who had what obligations or how violations would be handled.
If by that you mean me, the answer is just like other Constitutional limits on people's right to hold office. Which means, ultimately, by the House and Senate themselves, and realistically in practice also by state election officials.
I'd be happy to also answer "who had what obligations" but you might need to turn that into a complete sentence before I can help you.
I find it amusing that here is an attempt to disqualify someone based on something no one has been charged with, let along convicted of.
A riot is a riot, no matter how many times or how loudly you claim otherwise and try to call it something else. You can't put lipstick on a pig.
Well, if the feds can seize property that it claims is drug related, even if no one has been convicted, which the feds do all the time, then how would this be different.
Please note, I am not defending the current state of the law as it relates to civil asset forfeiture. Merely that the principle that underlies civil asset forfeiture would apply here as well. And just because the government horribly abuses civil asset forfeiture does not mean it doesn't have legitimate uses in specific cases.
Civil asset forfeiture applies to property, which can be replaced. If the feds seize your car you are not barred for life from owning another car. So to bar someone for life from holding public office necessarily requires a higher level of due process.
I don't necessarily disagree but I think we're talking about two different things. The question of whether a criminal conviction is required before Section 3 kicks in is a different question from what level of due process is required to keep someone out of office.
I agree with you that there needs to be due process, but I don't think that necessarily requires a criminal conviction. Especially since this would be a civil proceeding where the burden of proof is lower than in a criminal case.
What other fundamental rights are you willing to take away from someone's political opponents based on the traditional burden of proof for civil cases?
Maybe you could ask when I stopped beating my wife while you're at it.
Michael P, explain why you think any fundamental rights are at stake.
Oh, come on -- if you're going to throw out a poor analogy, swing for the fences. Since there's a low bar for civil asset forfeiture, the feds should just be able to shoot random people in the street!
OK, so you can't follow a simple argument.
OK, so you still can't see that your simple argument proved way too much.
What did it prove that was too much?
Speaking of not being able to follow a simple argument....
So answer my question. What did it prove that was too much?
Sure you can; just look to the White House. Of course lipstick or not it is still a pig.
" I find it amusing that here is an attempt to disqualify someone based on something no one has been charged with, "
Why do you assert this? People have been charged with sedition with respect to the Jan. 6 insurrection.
I find it unremarkable that someone who chooses to reside in our uneducated, can't-keep-up rural backwaters is uninformed.
Were any of the candidates that someone seeks to disqualify on the basis of the Insurrection Clause charged with anything? That is the key question.
That someone somewhere was charged with a crime does not make everyone who might have political sympathy with them guilty.
I figured you were familiar with standard English and intended "no one" when you wrote "no one."
My mistake.
I assumed that you had enough intelligence to figure out that I am not the same person as the one who wrote that. That he wrote "no one" is his mistake, not mine. The pertinent question is whether anyone runnning for office has been charged.
That is your assessment of relevance, because you are attempting to defend the insurrectionists mindlessly and reflexively. How many courts or non-clingers do you expect to share your view?
The topic of the post is disqualifying candidates for office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. So the relevant question is whether any of them were charged with anything. That non-candidates were charged with something is not relevant to the discussion. Their qualification for an office they are not running for is irrelevant.
That's in normal land. In political OCD world you inhabit, relevance has some other meaning. Whatever triggers you to write a sentence with "clinger" or "betters."
Try therapy. It does wonders.
" So the relevant question is whether any of them were charged with anything. "
Has any court -- or anyone other than a wingnut law professor or a Newsweek columnist -- agreed with your partisan assessment of relevance?
There is no standalone crime of sedition, only seditious conspiracy. Which also seems to be undefined.
It strikes me that for the court to even seriously entertain this lawsuit, it would need to have an evidentiary hearing on whether or not these two engaged in insurrection. And that such an evidentiary hearing would presumably satisfy any due process issues.
Where I live, convicted felons are not allowed to run for public office. If one did, even with the felony conviction I think there would still need to be some kind of hearing to either keep them off the ballot, or prevent them from taking office if elected. I don't really see a claim that someone committed insurrection as being any different.
Does the evidentiary hearing have to be on the federal level, or would one in the state be sufficient?
Since the Fourteenth Amendment is silent we won't know until there's actual caselaw on it. My intuition is that either one would be sufficient. Under res judicata, a finding in one court would be binding on another. Since state officials print the ballots, a state court could enjoin them from including a specific name, and if there's an allegation of a Fourteenth Amendment violation, so could a federal court.
Griffin's case is case law. It may be the only case law on the topic.
Except that case is clear as mud. It apparently was self executing to some (e.g. Jefferson Davis) but not others (Griffin) yet didn't give any reason why that would be so or situate it in the text.
I would imagine federal. Thinking back to the Civil War, I'm not sure you'd want the government of Georgia determining whether members of the government of Georgia engaged in insurrection and should be barred from serving the government. Seems kindof like letting the accused sit on his own jury.
But the chambers still have their independent right to not sit an elected person, so I don't think that is a strong argument.
I don't know where I fall on the federal vs state here, but it isn't what you are describing
And they also have their independent right to void this prohibition for anyone.
Where is Originalism when you need it?
Clearly it is the intent of those who authored the amendment to the Constitution that anyone who participated in an Insurrection was disqualified from office. But according to folks like Prof. Blackman, this Originalism is not applicable. The reason of course is that in its current context it would apply to individuals whose political positions align with folks like Prof. Blackman. If the charges were against someone like Nancy Pelosi, the outrage of Prof. Blackman and others and their demand for disqualification would be immense.
Of course the real villains here are those who authored the Amendment, leaving it totally unclear as to how to make it work. So once again there is a Constitutional issue that is meaningless.
The authors of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment were thinking of the Civil War and so no determination had to be made because everyone already knew which government officials of the federal government or any State or local government had sworn an oath to support the Confederacy. Section 3's text suggests they did not strongly, if at all, consider the possibility of a future "insurrection or rebellion."
I think Section 3 should be read to be in harmony with the rest of the Constitution. This means that the criminal procedure rights in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments should be respected before anyone could be officially declared to have participated in an "insurrection or rebellion."
Did that happen with the Confederates?
Did anyone ever try to run, was challenged as ineligible, and then some kind of procedure was implemented? I am not aware of such, but would be interested if there was.
Point is, I imagine that most Confederates did not even bother to try to run, realizing they were disqualified. So that really proves nothing.
Probably you are right, but I really don't know.
" Point is, I imagine that most Confederates did not even bother to try to run, realizing they were disqualified. "
Which would mean even violent racists and disgusting losers had more character, judgment, and integrity that the likes of Marjorie Taylor Green, Paul Gosar, Matt Gaetz, Madison Cawthorn, and the rest of the un-American insurrectionists of 2021.
Where Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, and some other Republican "stolen election" chuckleheads reside on the continuum is a point still emerging.
Meet Victor Berger: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_L._Berger
Section 3's text suggests they did not strongly, if at all, consider the possibility of a future "insurrection or rebellion."
Given preceding references in the Constitution to insurrection and rebellion, and the acknowledged influence on the Philadelphia convention of Shay's Rebellion, I doubt that is an accurate reading.
I think it more likely that they thought Section 3 would only be applied in very clear cut cases where nobody would realistically have any concerns that the people it was being applied to weren't actually involved in an insurrection. Rather than being applied to an event only one end of the political spectrum thought qualified.
Which was stupid enough, I'll admit.
"Clearly it is the intent of those who authored the amendment to the Constitution that anyone who participated in an Insurrection was disqualified from office."
So what Sidney r Finkel thinks was "clearly" the intent is what controls originalism. No need for historical research or review of precedent or similar cases.
Love how your own speculation becomes a basis for besmirching the other side with charges of hypocrisy.
So give us all the benefit of your own "historical research or review of precedent" that would disprove Mr. Finkel's statement. I think even Blackman and Tillman would agree with it. The real question, of course, is who has the power to enforce it.
Absolutely. If anyone has evidence that the authors of the amendment didn't mean what they said, they should come forth with it. For now, I will stick to the original text when it is clear and unabiguous, and not be an opportunist that support Originalism only when it is politically inconvenient.
And the logic here is clear. People who lead or support a violent overthrow of the government should not be allowed to serve in that government. Really, anybody disagree with that. The authors of the amendment to the Constitution certainly did, as did the states that approved the amendment.
The last part of Prof. Blackman's op ed reads
"In such circumstances, state governments must let the people decide who will represent them in Congress."
but of course this is only for office holders who hold the same political views as so-called Conservatives. In Virginia the Republican Governor has decided to abort the term of most of the school board members in Loundon County because the county voted against him.
"During last year’s General Assembly session, the Loudoun County School Board sought and won state authority to transition to staggered terms starting next year. On Monday, Gov. Glenn Youngkin amended an update to that bill, seeking to trigger snap elections for all nine School Board members this fall, cutting short the terms of seven elected officials by one year."
So one awaits with eagerness people like Prof. Blackman writing op ed's to condemn him. I am sure that will happen just as soon as Godot shows up to meet with the hobos awaiting him. See, the voters get to decide on who will represent them only if the make the 'right' decision. Otherwise, no dice.
Are you that stupid? The issue is who determines whether someone engaged in an insurrection, when the candidate disputes that very point. The text of the 14th Amendment says nothing about that issue.
Your post is like saying that the homicide statute of a state says anyone who commits first-degree murder should be executed, so we can just execute anyone on the say-so of a clerk.
Under Article I, Section 4, state legislatures are empowered to prescribe the time, place and manner of Congressional elections, subject to Congress making or altering such regulations. Prescribing an administrative law procedure, subject to judicial review in the state courts, would seem to be within the Georgia legislature's prerogative.
No you idiot. Prof. Blackman's op ed piece argues that only the Feds, not the states can disqualify a candidate under the Amendment. And so under that belief a state cannot act to disqualify the candidate.
What should happen is that the candidate should have his/her day in court, state court if the disqualification is made at the state level. See, that's the way we decide things in this nation.
I humbly suggest that next time you comment on something you actually read and understand the underlying argument.
Answer is, yes, you really are that stupid.
I am well aware of what Prof. Blackman's argument is.
Your argument, however, was:
Clearly it is the intent of those who authored the amendment to the Constitution that anyone who participated in an Insurrection was disqualified from office. But according to folks like Prof. Blackman, this Originalism is not applicable.
The first sentence is true, but completely disconnected from the second. That the drafters clearly wished to disqualify certain people (who had taken an oath and then engaged in insurrection) does not inform the question of who decides whether a particular person engaged in insurrection. Nothing. Nada.
Any more than a statute that outlaws murder tells you who decides if a particular person committed murder.
So your charge against Blackman of abandoning Originalism is completely hollow. And I understood his argument quite well. What I found ridiculously stupid is your counterargument.
No, the antecdent question is who has the power to determine whether a given candidate engaged in Insurrection. And what procedures you need. Whatever it is, I don't think an elections-board clerk deciding ex parte is enough.
Originalism's hollow, nearly worthless nature is revealed every time it would be inconvenient for the right-wingers who claim to revere it.
What should we expect of something less important than Kim Kardashian, less popular than Kim Kardashian, less influential than Kim Kardashian -- but a bit older than Kim Kardashian and seemingly destined to have roughly the same lifespan as Kim Kardashian?
Carry on, clingers.
Worthless described the nature of 95% of your posts. At least you did not make any brown-shirt statements in this one.
You find my posts worthless.
Modern America finds your opinions stale, ugly, and obsolete.
I am content to let time, the marketplace of ideas, and the culture war continue to sift this.
Are you?
Yes. Marxism has failed. Every time.
Come back here after Election Day and let me know what the marketplace of ideas decides.
Remember, The Rev. Warnock illegally occupied the Capitol a few years ago. Was he an insurrectionist? As I recall he paid a fine and went on his way.
"Of course the real villains here are those who authored the Amendment, leaving it totally unclear as to how to make it work."
No. The real villains here are the people who can't read all the way down to section 5, just a few paragraphs later.
FYI, the longer explanation of why all of this is wrong has just been published on Balkinization here: https://balkin.blogspot.com/2022/04/self-execution-and-section-three.html
A four hour riot is not an insurrection.
A failed insurrection remains an insurrection. The length of time it took to fail is irrelevant.
Still, you are to be commended for not referring to the event as a tourist group viewing paintings.
As an aside, I have noticed variations of this particular piece of idiocy for a while - "there weren't enough people for it to be an insurrection", or "they weren't all armed", etc. etc., as though stupidity or incompetence were defences.
Somewhere between a single guy spray painting graffiti on a federal building, and a couple dozen states declaring war on the federal government, I think you've got to admit there's a threshold below which it doesn't make sense to call something an "insurrection".
Not because incompetence or stupidity render something not an insurrection, but just because the scale of the effort simply does not fit the charge.
Or else you've got to go back the last several years and start the insurrection trials for all those people who attacked federal buildings, or the guys who took over part of DC for an "autonomous zone". And every politician who enabled them.
We scheduled an insurrection but only half of the RSVPs showed up! What do we do? Declare it a riot instead, I guess? All these wasted weapons stashes. Maybe they'll keep for two years.
Hiding behind all the yahoos that weren't in on the actual insurrection planning doesn't mean people weren't planning it or that people didn't show up prepared for it.
Right, and there might have been as many as a dozen actual insurrectionists on January 6th, (Maybe a couple dozen if you include their FBI handlers...) as well as hundreds at riots in the previous couple of years.
The problem is, nobody is trying to Section 3 anybody who actually plausibly engaged in insurrection. THOSE folks are just being tried in court for their supposed crimes.
They're trying to Section 3 politicians who said stuff about it.
Has anyone been charged with insurrection so far? I don't think so, but it's just an impression.
If not, if no one has been charged with insurrection, how can you call it an insurrection?
It can't be a robbery, because I was only charged with assault!
This is a very dumb argument in any context, including this one.
Not as dumb as what you are implying: That something can be insurrection or rebellion for the constitutional purpose of denying the rights of thousands of millions of voters to be represented by their preferred candidate, when it is not insurrection or rebellion for a relatively lesser criminal justice purpose.
Not nearly as dumb as arguing that someone should be punished as though they committed a robbery, when they were only charged with assault.
That's some impressive question begging on the requirements here.
No, no there isn't. Not to rational sentient beings.
You want to permanently impair Constitutional rights by flinging around big boy terms like "insurrection," you wear your big boy pants and let the criminal justice system prove them up under the criminal statute provided for same. Otherwise you're just creating a sexy-sounding label for the next trendy way to brush your political opponents out of the way when they get too inconvenient.
Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment specifies those who "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against" the United States. If the drafters meant to say shall have been convicted of insurrection or rebellion, they knew what language would effectuate that requirement.
I don't agree. The media that is aligned with the Democratic part, and the progressive movement, which is most of what are often referred to as the mainstream media: the big papers, media companies like CNN, MSNBC, NPR, et.al., call it an insurrection, as do the Dems and anyone opposed to Trump. But there hasn't been a credible charge of insurrection made against anyone, including the article of impeachment against Trump, inciting an insurrection.
What does an insurrection look like? Certainly not what occurred 1/6/21. What does incitement look like? Certainly not what Trump said on 1/6/21. No one inciting an insurrection says to a crowd that they should proceed peacefully to demonstrate at the Capitol. No one defending against an insurrection holds the doors open and ushers people in. No one participating in an insurrection mills around, takes selfies, and then leaves without doing anything else.
If this was an insurrection, people would have been charged with insurrection, and the prosecution would have made their case, and presented evidence supporting the charge, and would likely have come close if not succeeding in getting a conviction. But that has not even been discussed!
But saying it WAS an insurrection but we're not going to actually charge anyone with insurrection, we're going to dance around that with charges of "Entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds; disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building; disorderly conduct in a Capitol building; parade, demonstrate, or picketing in a Capitol building," and so on, does not make it an insurrection! No more so than your example of a charge of assault resulting from a a supposed robbery prove it's a robbery.
Those asserting that was an insurrection are either cynical partisans, or delusional.
IANAL, but the difference between a riot and an insurrection is the overall goal and planning. Some of the groups of people that attacked Congress on Jan 6th were there to stop Congress from voting to confirm Biden as the winner of the election. They planned for this, equiped for this, and created stashes of weapons nearby in support of that goal. The evidence supporting this is pretty overwhelming. "Seditious conspiracy" is the most serious charge so far. I cannot seem to find a lot of difference between seditious conspiracy and insurrection outside of one is "planned to do it" and the other is "took action to do it." Anyone charged of seditious conspiracy who took part in the attempt to stop the transfer of the presidency to Biden seems to this non-lawyer as somone who committed insurrection.
Seditious conspiracy requires two or more persons but it doesn't require everyone in attendance. That there was a riot doesn't preclude an attempted insurrection or coup at the same time. A riot would certainly be a good cover for an insurrection.
"What does an insurrection look like? Certainly not what occurred 1/6/21. What does incitement look like? Certainly not what Trump said on 1/6/21. No one inciting an insurrection says to a crowd that they should proceed peacefully to demonstrate at the Capitol. No one defending against an insurrection holds the doors open and ushers people in. No one participating in an insurrection mills around, takes selfies, and then leaves without doing anything else."
I do believe that you've mistaken your opinions for statements of fact.
Remember, The Rev. Warnock illegally occupied the Capitol a few years ago. Was he an insurrectionist? As I recall he paid a fine and went on his way.
Well you can't apply the penalty for robbery if you are only charged with assault, I think that principle is clear.
If fact the supreme court has been very clear in interpreting this statute “an offense that has an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another” that the conduct being charged, no matter how violent it was, is not a "crime of violence" unless the offense that is charged is clearly applies to a violent crime.
You don't get to assume alignment with a criminal penalty. That's largely the question in the OP.
It may be a good idea, but it's not a clear requirement at all.
"Well you can't apply the penalty for robbery if you are only charged with assault, I think that principle is clear."
I wish it were, actually. My understanding is that courts routinely sentence based on things you weren't charged with, once you're convicted. It's called "real offense sentencing".
This was as much of an "insurrection" as a school walk out over bad food in the cafeteria.
I agree, that's a good characterization of it. I find the people who insist that what happened was indeed an insurrection to be unhinged: bernard11, SRG, et.al. They disregard all of the evidence, the sequence of events, the behavior of the Capitol police, the videos of the "tourists" in the Capitol building who entered when the police held the doors open for them, their milling around, taking selfies, and leaving. That's how most of them behaved, and admittedly there was a cadre who behaved badly and even violently. But the latter were in the smallest of minorities. These unhinged say its an insurrection because they want it to be so, they hate Trump, they want him forever disqualified from office, and they want to persecute and punish his supporters.
A lot of what you seem to think happened is cherry picking particular events, mixing up the chronology, and then generalizing. And ignoring a bunch of other sources, pictures, and video about how violent this was, and what their intent was.
But of course all the countervailing evidence is from people who hate Trump, and therefore it can be discarded for whatever apologist media you may prefer.
Oy.
Welcome to Wonder Land. Yes, I remember well the images of a bare breasted MTG hoisting the flag and storming the Capitol.
"A lot of what you seem to think happened is cherry picking particular events, mixing up the chronology, and then generalizing. And ignoring a bunch of other sources, pictures, and video about how violent this was, and what their intent was."
How violent was it? How many people were injured or killed, and by whom?
And what was their intent? I'll point out here that the crowd wasn't acting monolithically, there were perhaps dozens of intents, the most common one being sightseeing; else, there would have been much more damage and violence.
"But of course all the countervailing evidence is from people who hate Trump, and therefore it can be discarded for whatever apologist media you may prefer."
Likewise, I'm sure.
You are correct--the crowd wasn't acting monolithically. But some groups of people were. And if the goal was to stop Congress from voting, the riot could have been the main weapon. Regardless, you're assuming that everyone has to be in on the insurrection for it to be a real insurrection.
People were "sightseeing" during a riot? Really?! While cops were being beaten and crushed and maced? While MAGA morons were smearing feces on the walls? While people were chanting to hang the Vice President as a gallows was errected on the lawn? Sightseeing?!
I think I might agree that a small subset of the people entering the Capitol on January 6ths could qualify as insurrectionists, much as a rather larger number of rioters over the preceding two years could have.
The problem is that nobody is trying to keep THOSE people off the ballot.
Almost everyone who entered the Capitol on Jan 06 broke in past police, or did so alongside people who were breaking in.
That's quite a move for non-insurrectionists.
Of course criminal guilt is individualized, but you really seem to be tuning your guilt by crowd up and down depending on what side the crowd is on.
rioters over the preceding two years
Well, this is growing in the telling.
"Almost everyone who entered the Capitol on Jan 06 broke in past police, or did so alongside people who were breaking in."
This is simply factually false. At least one guy has gotten off already because of video showing that he was waved in by the Capitol police. You think he's going to be the only one?
They're being pretty tight with the surveillance video, to keep that myth alive.
"rioters over the preceding two years
Well, this is growing in the telling."
Yeah, you're still in denial about riots that cost a couple billion in property damage, killed a couple dozen people, and involved arson of occupied buildings, including government buildings, and violent takeovers of areas of cities.
The latter two of which easily qualify as insurrection.
"This was as much of an "insurrection" as a school walk out over bad food in the cafeteria."
Delusional, bigoted, half-educated, un-American, lying right-wingers are perhaps my favorite culture war casualties.
And the precise target audience of a white, male, movement conservative, faux libertarian blog with a vanishingly thin academic veneer.
Gee, you're soooo smart. Did you attend the same divinity school as Rev Al Sharpton?
There was no "insurrection" on Jan. 6; at most a "mostly peaceful demonstration" infiltrated by some bad actors,
Be sure to watch for Ken Burns "The Shortest Civil War" soon to be on PBS.
I don't have to be soooo smart. At least, not to refute, mock, and identify the failures of the people who operate and comment at this white, male, bigot-friendly, reason-disdaining wingnut blog.
"There was no "insurrection" on Jan. 6; at most a "mostly peaceful demonstration" infiltrated by some bad actors,"
That goes too far: There's clear evidence that the break in at the Capitol was premeditated, and the peaceful people involved were lured in as cover.
The actual peaceful demonstration was at the other end of the Mall, and was unrelated to the break in.
That's not the point of the post. That goes to the merits of the claim. That is separate from whether the clause is self executing or needs federal implimentation.
Unrelated to the topic of the post itself, I found myself thinking about the change from Seth Barrett Tillman to S. B. Tillman. I assume it's the same person and wondered if it's a marketing thing or if there's some change in Seth's life that leads to the initials instead of the full name.
The argument presented by Blackman and Tillman rests on a very weak reed. The single cited 1869 decision, written by Chief Justice Chase sitting as a circuit court judge, is a most unpersuasive authority. In it, Chief Justice Chase, after swimming around in arguments unsupported by authority, finally lands on the final section of the 14th Amendment to rule that Congress must pass legislation to implement the 14th Amendment. “Now, the necessity of this is recognized by the amendment itself, in its fifth and final section, which declares that ‘congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provision of this article.’” Chase’s decision in Griffin’s Case has never been cited by the Supreme Court, and at least by Clyatt v. U.S. in 1905, the Supreme Court was confidently stating that the 13th Amendment, “as well as the 14th is undoubtedly self-executing without ancillary legislation.”
"he Supreme Court was confidently stating that the 13th Amendment, “as well as the 14th is undoubtedly self-executing without ancillary legislation.”
Seems like the plain language of the amendment contradicts this.
No it doesn't. Section 5 gives Congress new powers that Article I doesn't. That doesn't mean the the 14th A. isn't self executing. The very nature of incorporation proves this as well as dozens if not hundreds of cases where states are found to violate the 14th A without there being a statute to do implement it.
Then why the need for and purpose of Section 5?
1. It gives them the authority to waive a states sovereign immunity
2. The courts have allowed them to make prophylactic rules and/or tests that may not be strictly required by the clause itself
3. It allows them to make a federal cause of action so that it can be enforced in a federal court rather than only in state court
This is pretty cool. I never learned this subtlety, and it's nice to see it laid out like this.
Yeah, I don't buy the idea that they're not self executing, either. I think the real issue is actually due process, not the lack of a statute.
There actually IS a statute, of course. Like any other criminal statute, you get a trial before it takes effect. You don't get the penalty on the basis of some clerk deciding you're guilty.
But I think the disqualification could be enforced by Congress at the time somebody tried to take office, even without a statute, under their pre-existing authority to judge the qualifications of their own members.
So Congress could help make sure the Fourteenth Amendment is obeyed. It doesn't mean Congress can effectively repeal the amendment simply by not using its Section 5 authority.
So, persons born in the U.S. would not be citizens unless Congress made them so?
Where and when you were born are ascertainable facts, as are whether you took an oath to defend the Constitution, and then joined the Confederacy.
Jan 6 is a judgement call.
Another example [ending lower court filibuster, Resistance!!!! judging, kicking people off committees] of ignoring the possibility of the opposing party doing the same to to you for some limited or temporary gain.
if MTG can't run, another GOPer will still win that district.
If a riot is an "insurrection" because it seeks to interrupt government activity, then a whole lot of riots will be treated as insurrections. Which side riots more?
Plus, Congress can flat out refuse to sit members.
First, rules are rules and the Constitution should be afforded some level of respect even by bigoted, half-educated, downscale wingnuts.
Second, not all Republicans are as disgusting as Marjorie Taylor Greene. Not even close.
Third, I expect you to continue your silly, bitter mumbling along this line even after several clingers are convicted of seditious conspiracy. That's what disaffected culture war casualties do.
It was not an insurrection because it sought to "interrupt" government activity. It was an insurrection because it sought to alter control over the government.
Like the attemot to burn down the Mark O. Hatfield Courthouse?
Is any participant in that burning running for Congress?
No participants in January 6th are running for Congress, either.
So what exactly are the required elements for something to be an insurrection?
You mention "alter control over the government". Would your definition include (for example) storming the capital to prevent the seating of a senator, or storming the Supreme Court to prevent the seating of a justice? Or does it only apply to president?
Also, how involved does someone have to be in the attempt? A physical participant or actual planner? Or is merely stating agreement with their objectives enough to trigger the insurrection clause?
I don't follow Taylor or Cawthorn's statements and actions closely.
I could see banning Taylor or Cawthorn if they had personally participated in the forcible entry, or were shown to have ordered it or incited it with some specific intent, or it was some kind of formal organization for the purpose of overthrowing the government and they were members.
But merely saying they agree with the rioters, or defending their actions, while continuing to obey the law? Nah. Many Northerners opposed the Civil War, but took no action or even served in the Union Army. I don't think Congress intended to ban them from running for office.
Mr. N, you are one of the most astute participants here: how would the activities of Jan 6 altered control of the government? If Congress was not able to count the ballots on Jan 6, it would have been game over?
And Trump WAS the President. To me you can't alter control of the government till control passes to someone else. Like the difference between embezzlement and larceny. The presidency was still in Trump's possession on Jan 6.
It seems like a strange argument that the state, which otherwise has the power to run the election, is barred from enforcing the exact same restrictions to serving in Congress that the Constitution specifies. I can see it being barred from adding additional restrictions.
It seems to me that the simplest procedure is this:
1. State throws candidate off the ballot because she's an insurrectionist
2. Candidate goes to Federal court arguing that she is not an insurrectionist.
3. Court holds an evidentiary hearing.
4. Court then makes a factual finding, and a ruling based on the finding, as a consequence of which either the patriot is restored to the ballot or the crazed insurrectionist loon remains off the ballot.
1) State imprisons person because she's a murderer.
2) Person goes to court arguing that she's not a murderer,
3) Court holds a hearing....
Due process requires a presumption of innocence. The state needs to make its case that you need to be punished, rather than you needing to make a case that you are innocent, and it needs to happen before the punishment.
No-one is being imprisoned, and being left off the ballot is not a punishment if you can be put back on it before the election.
Do you think that the police have to go to trial before arresting anyone?
Ok, well then:
1. State throws voter off the voter rolls because allegation they are ineligible.
2. Voter goes to Federal court arguing that she is not ineligible.
3. Court holds an evidentiary hearing.
4. Court then makes a factual finding, and a ruling based on the finding, as a consequence of which either the patriot is restored to the voter rolls or ...
As long as they aren't being imprisoned, I think that's ok.
Being kept of the ballot is a final decision.
In what jurisdiction is it a final decision? Both states where challenges have been entertained, North Carolina and Georgia, provide for judicial review in the state courts.
Leftist disdain for due process on full display in these comments. The transparency is refreshing.
You couldn't define due process on a bet. Not even with the smartest person who lives within five miles of you providing assistance, most likely.
Why do clingers love insurrectionists and hate America?
The folks who insist there’s no constitutional right to vote are the same folks who appear to believe there’s a constitutional right to run for office.
They're just reaching for any life preserver they see (or think they see) as their stale, ugly thinking continues to wash out to sea in modern America.
OtisAH — To call voting a right is a bit confusing. Folks do that, I think, to sanctify voting, which is to say to elevate it beyond reach of attack. But a safer interpretation—and a truer one in the scheme of American constitutionalism—makes voting not a right but a sovereign power. That makes voting even more secure.
Rights remain vulnerable—they can be balanced against other rights, or enervated to serve compelling government interests. Sovereign powers, by definition, control governments. Sovereign powers are exercised at pleasure, without constraints. Sovereign powers are not for governments to review, let alone to modify or to suspend.
Regarded that way, you see accurately that election results are sovereign decrees on a par with the Constitution itself. The voting process becomes in that view a process willed by the sovereign, and thus beyond the reach of state government activity, except in a purely ministerial capacity. Government's election role is to supervise the process and count the ballots. Attempts to use state government or state laws to affect in any way the voting outcomes would thus be illegitimate, and rightly viewed as constitutional violations.
Has this issue ever come up with regards to other qualifications? Someone runs for Congress. Someone says, hey, you're only 24. He says, no I'm 25. Has there ever been such a dispute?
Probably, but that is generally easily solved by ministerial consulting of an unambiguous public record.
Hey that's not a bad idea, maybe there should be an innsurection statute that requires a conviction, which is of course a public record, to disqualify someone.
Something like Title 18. USC 2383.
If Congress wanted to set a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for section 3, they would have done so.
*the drafters of section 3. Apologies.
Not sure about age, but the "natural born citizen" qualification for the Presidency has come up.
Do we really want a bunch of state election officials dropping candidates from the ballot because they are not satisfied with their birth certificates?
If it is clear the candidate was born in Austria and not California, by all means keep him off the ballot. The system got it right in 2016. You can question Obama's right to be a candidate, but you need expert testimony to overcome the constitutional presumption that birth certificates issued by other states are as good as an in-state birth certificate.
Make that "in 2012". Time flies.
Don't you remember when Obama's candidacy was put on hold till his birthplace could be verified?
Because his mother, like Mazie Hirono's, was too young to pass on her citizenship had Obama been born outside the US.
Don't you remember when Obama's candidacy was put on hold till his birthplace could be verified?
Because his mother, like Mazie Hirono's, was too young to pass on her citizenship had Obama been born outside the US.
Here was what Nancy Pelisi tweeted.
http://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/1284294427654197248
What makes her innocent of insurrection?
Well, let's see:
1) She only appears to have tweeted an opinion, which is speech, and at worst this could be seditious if one assumed "must be stopped" meant violent overthrow of the government.
2) As she's a very high ranking government official as Speaker and she has a great deal of political power that she could bring to bear in legal ways, it's unlikley she's adovcating for violent overthrow of the government.
3) She didn't storm the Whitehouse with a couple thousand crazed conspiracy theorists in an attempt to take the presidency. Insurrection requires more than a haughty tweet.
One could argue she gave aid and comfort to the insurrectionists attacking the federal judiciary.
And you'd be wrong, as usual.
I am not persuaded, based on what I have seen so far, that members of Congress have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States regarding the sordid events of January 6, 2021. But I think it will be beneficial for the challenged members to account for their conduct, under oath and before an impartial tribunal, with judicial review to follow.
By which you mean this "impartial tribunal" isn't judicial?
On the other hand, I am persuaded that this review will not be an impartial tribunal, and thus this fails to meet your criteria.