Well, WaPo throws cold water on a hot idea:

https://www.washingtonpost.com...c50eb3f77_story.html

Alas, Trump Is Still Eligible to Run for Office
Analysis by Noah Feldman | Bloomberg
August 20, 2023 at 8:24 a.m. EDT

A law journal article has some persuasiveness in legal circles, including courts.

A newspaper article has none.

That's good to remember.

Let me say that I am suspicious of "originalists" and also I don't trust the Federalist Society.

But taken at face value the analysis in the Law Review is credible.

There is a lot of talk. We shall see if becomes action.

https://youtu.be/BI9ACug-854

Trump Could Be DISQUALIFIED IMMEDIATELY under Constitution

Now we're getting closer.

Fox News pushback. All the more reason to proceed.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...Q6w?ocid=socialshare

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...a2542dac046ae7&ei=84

Florida lawyer files legal challenge to disqualify Trump from 2024 presidential race
Story by Antonio Fins, USA TODAY •
26m

"It's crystal clear that that one case is exactly the kind of charges that are referenced in this 14th Amendment Section 3," said Caplan. "It's one of those things that if you're an honest broker, if you're an honest judge, and you read the amendment and you look at the facts of the case, you walk away and say, 'He's barred.'"

Caplan and a growing chorus of legal scholars say the amendment does not require a conviction in the courts but simply a finding that he violated the clause.

The 800-plus page report issued last year by the congressional committee that investigated Trump's role in alleged efforts to thwart the electoral process, as well as his alleged inciting of the violence on Capitol Hill that day, are grounds for disqualification make the case, they say.

Caplan's challenge is among the first 14 Amendment-related objections lodged against Trump in a federal court. However, discussion of the 45th president's disqualification has surged in the past week.

Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson said in an interview on MSNBC that she has held talks with election officials in other states about the potential challenges to Trump's placement on the ballot.

Benson said that when "the time is right" she would seek an opinion from Michigan's attorney general. She expects a constitutional challenge to Trump's candidacy will be litigated and the courts will have the "final say" on the outcome. In the time being, she acknowledged she has been discussing the possibility with her peers in Nevada, Pennsylvania and Georgia, where Trump turned himself in on Thursday following his indictment for interfering in the state's 2020 election count.

"We are talking with colleagues in similarly situated states ... who will make a legally grounded decision, not a political one," Benson said. "We recognize that the four of us will likely need to act in concert, if we act at all. All those discussions are happening. We recognize the seriousness of this issue."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...4cab8135c20779&ei=63

The Case for Why the Constitution Blocks Trump Being President Again

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...9617ca45888164&ei=32

14th Amendment, Section 3: A new legal battle against Trump takes shape
13h

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...15b00b34948c59&ei=13

These two GOP candidates need to sue Trump immediately

I have mixed views on this. First - I want Trump gone into obscurity, or at least history, nullified in the present and future. I also want the same for Trumpism or MAGA.

But lots of conservatives want that to happen too. They want to save the GOP and their face. The fate of the Country's projected trajectory, path and end, under Trump and Trumpism, the means and consequences, are okay with most self-deemed conservatives.

So, if sec 3 of the 14th provides an easy solution to the RINO's and the politicians dilemma then I'm not in favor of that.

Many current GOP politicians would like for Trump to NOT be eligible for the ballot, per the constitution. That lets them off the hook and not have to suffer the wrath of Trump's base. They can shift blame, which is what they like best.

Plus, he's a loser and they know it.

So, pretending that we have a say in it, which is better (or worse) -- Trump to run as the GOP candidate, and lose, or not be allowed to be on the ballot, but raw Trumpism remains instead, and however it morphs?

With Trump out of the way, the GOP can pretend that it's not about what Trumpism represents, spin it easier, and perhaps have a better chance of winning without the direct link to Trump baggage, avoid a constitution crisis, etc.

The fact is that the 20,000 shock troop plan can still be perused, maybe implemented easier, to even better effect than if Trump did it.

https://youtu.be/LJcW-BEpgGk?si=4zKUY-Qb7DcQxVLf

Fourteenth Amendment - Music Video | Don Caron

6,467 views Jul 10, 2023
Do we really want people that participated in an attempted coup to serve in public office? Following the Civil War, when the 14th Amendment was ratified, it included Section 3, which prohibits a person from holding public office it they participated in an insurrection or gave support to it.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...16e6fb3a108eaf&ei=69

The Conservatives Who Read the Constitution— and Found It Disqualifies Trump
Story by John Nichols •
7h

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...61ecc0fbaa16f3&ei=23

Getting Trump disqualified with the 14th Amendment could be dangerous -- here's why
Story by Travis Gettys •
55m

================================================

Aside from the content of the above article, I have seen some comments where this section 3 of the 14th could be used inappropriately in the weaponization ploys of laws and authority.

Hopefully we have clarification on this when the dust settles.

Nothing in the Constitution is self-enforcing. Nothing.

This issue, if it is valid, will be fought in State courts, one at a time, in lawsuits against the Secretary of State to prohibit the production of ballots with Trump on them.

Only a State may decide who may appear on their ballot.

There is a lawyer in Florida who has filed a legal challange.

I think there will be more.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...a2542dac046ae7&ei=84

quote:

lawsuits against the Secretary of State to prohibit the production of ballots with Trump on them.

I think it could also be a case of lawsuit to prohibit the production of ballots omitting Trump, should some states decide through legal counsel to leave him off, expecting lawsuit.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...12d6990518ec3a&ei=67

Secretaries of state get ready for possible challenges to Trump's ballot access
Story by Vaughn Hillyard •
4h

Now, the people running state elections are trying to figure out what to do if people bring legal challenges against Trump.

“We have to have a final certification of eligible candidates [for the primary ballot] by Dec. 14 for Arizona’s presidential preference election,” Fontes, a Democrat elected in 2022, told NBC News. “And because this will ultimately end up in court, we are taking this very seriously.”

New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan is dealing with the same question as he watches a potential challenge to Trump brewing in his state. There, a Republican former Trump ally is considering bringing a 14th Amendment challenge against him.

“We need to run an election,” Fontes said. “We need to know who is eligible, and this is of incredible national interest. We aren’t taking a position one way or the other.”

“If there are people who want to fight this out, they need to start swinging because I have an election to run,” Fontes added.

New Hampshire’s Scanlan made the same point on Monday — that he is “not seeking to remove any names from the presidential primary ballot” but is trying to figure out what to do about potential challenges that are brewing.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...d94f776e8f4ef6&ei=66

Liberal groups seek to use the Constitution's insurrection clause to block Trump from 2024 ballots
Story by By NICHOLAS RICCARDI, Associated Press •
15h

Two liberal nonprofits pledge court challenges should states' election officers place Trump on the ballot despite those objections.

The effort is likely to trigger a chain of lawsuits and appeals across several states that ultimately would lead to the U.S. Supreme Court, possibly in the midst of the 2024 primary season. The matter adds even more potential legal chaos to a nomination process already roiled by the front-runner facing four criminal trials.

Now Trump's very ability to run could be litigated as Republicans are scheduled to start choosing their nominee, starting with the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 15.

“There's a very real prospect these cases will be active during the primaries,” said Gerard Magliocca, a law professor at Indiana University, warning that there could be different outcomes in different states before the Supreme Court makes a final decision. “Imagine you have an opinion that says he's not eligible and then there's another primary where he's on the ballot.”

Though most litigation is unlikely to begin until October, when states begin to set their ballots for the upcoming primary, the issue has gotten a boost from a recently released law review article written by two prominent conservative law professors, William Baude and Michael Paulsen. They concluded that Trump must be barred from the ballot due to the clause in the third section of the 14th Amendment.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...d4676917138b25&ei=14

A 'risky' 14th Amendment strategy to get rid of Trump could have unintended dire consequences: legal expert
Story by Alex Henderson •
2h

(Also, there are several related articles linked at the bottom of this article.)

One:

https://www.alternet.org/conse...trump-dared-taunted/

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...9fec412101a2db&ei=41

‘He Can’t Run’: Donald Trump Is Now Facing the Totally Unthinkable
Story by Harrison Kass •
2h

The GOP Has a Serious Problem - Donald Trump Can't Win If He Can Run for Office: The New York Times, the paper of record, is asking the question on the mind of many Americans: ‘Is Trump Disqualified?’

Short answer: probably not.

But the theory will be tested in the nation’s first primary state, New Hampshire, where the untested legal theory – that the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution bars Trump from the ballot – is being tested.

“A long-shot presidential candidate has filed a lawsuit in state court seeking an injunction to keep Mr. Trump off the ballot. And a former Republican candidate for Senate is urging the secretary of state to bring a case that could put the issue before the U.S. Supreme Court,” The Times reported.

Donald Trump Getting Challenged in Several States
The effort may not be limited to just New Hampshire.

Earlier this week, a liberal-leaning group called Free Speech for the People, sent letters to secretaries of state in New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Florida, Ohio, and New Mexico.

The gist of the letter? Please use the 14th Amendment to bar Trump from appearing on the ballot.

“These efforts employ a theory that has been gaining traction among liberals and anti-Trump conservatives: that Mr. Trump’s actions on Jan. 6, 2021, disqualify him under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars people from holding office if they took an oath to support the Constitution and later “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof,” The Times reported.

But the 14th Amendment theory is a long-shot.

Even if a secretary of state went so far as to remove Donald Trump’s name from the ballot, Trump would pour his considerable resources into legally appealing the decision.

If Trump did not receive favorable rulings in the lower courts, he would appeal to the Supreme Court, where his case would come before a conservative majority.

“When it gets to the Supreme Court, as it surely will, this will test the dedication of the justices to principles of law, more than almost anything has for a very long time,” said constitutional law professor, Laurence H. Tribe, who believes the 14th amendment does disqualify Trump, “because they will obviously realize that telling the leading candidate of one major political party, ‘no, no way, you’re not eligible’ is no small matter,” The Times reported.

The justices, three of whom Trump appointed, may not see the case as cut and dry as Mr. Tribe.

But if nothing else, the justices are apt to appreciate how consequential their decision will be. If the justices ruled that the 14th Amendment did not disqualify Trump, then the justices would be accused of being Trump lackeys. On the other hand, if the judges ruled that Donald Trump was disqualified, then nearly half the country would scream ‘corruption!’

But first the 14th Amendment disqualification theory will need to get to the Supreme Court. Meaning the conditions for a legal fight will need to manifest. New Hampshire looks to be the early frontrunner, with the most fertile soil for a legal challenge. New Hampshire Republicans have vowed to fight any effort to remove Trump from the ballot.

“There’s no question that we will fight, and we’ll use all of the tools available to us to fight anyone’s access being denied on the ballot,” said New Hampshire state committeeman Chris Ager, a Republican. “And if there’s a lawsuit, we are likely to intervene on behalf of the candidate to make sure that they have access. So we take it very seriously that the people of New Hampshire should decide who the nominee is, not a judge, not a justice system.”

The various SOSs should just omit him from their ballot/s or announce their intention to do so and let him pick up the tab to challenge it in the courts.

Goodness ME has gotten himself all lathered up. This TDS business is bad!

First bout:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...1d2d4a66daed74&ei=12

Trump Scores Major Victory From Obama-Appointed Judge
Story by Katherine Fung •
5h

Judge Robin Rosenberg, who was appointed by President Barack Obama in 2014, swiftly dismissed a case challenging Trump's candidacy just a week after the lawsuit was filed.

The case, brought by Boynton Beach tax attorney Lawrence Caplan and two others, argued that Trump's name should not be allowed to appear on the Florida presidential primary ballot next year because of his alleged role in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. Robinson told the plaintiffs on Friday that their case lacked standing to bring a challenge under the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

================================================================================================

This has already been covered:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Who would have standing in such a lawsuit? President Trump would if a state used this theory to keep him off the ballot.

Maybe an opposing candidate; maybe?

The S. Ct., does not recognize tax payer standing. You cannot just say, “I am a citizen, and I what this law enforced.”

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
Goodness ME has gotten himself all lathered up. This TDS business is bad!

TDS from your perspective is BS, in my opinion. It's a dismissal by those who just won't get it. The "derangement" is supporting Trump and Trumpism in any way, directly or indirectly, actively or passively, complicit or apologist. It's harmful. I can't understand why people do that.

The quest continues:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...nnel=BrianTylerCohen

First steps taken to DISQUALIFY Trump in 2024

Here's an analysis that I'll settle for until something more persuasive happens.

https://youtu.be/hSrjsFlpUIc?si=CqN9AAz9E4pLH5Xw

The discussion about Sect. 3 of the 14th starts at about 2:50

Brooks and Capehart PBS NewsHour 1 hour ago

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
Goodness ME has gotten himself all lathered up. This TDS business is bad!

We got ourselves ME Derangement OCPD
Sometimes people simply loose it on here

I wonder if OCPD is a factor in becoming a member of Proud Boys, especially the leaders? Here's something I found interesting, related to "derangement" and consequences:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...baa8cb49882ea7&ei=32

Legal expert points finger at Trump after light sentences doled out to Proud Boys leaders
Story by Tom Boggioni •
19h

After a stern lecture from Judge Timothy J. Kelly, former Proud Boy leaders Joseph Biggs and Zachary Rehl were sentenced to 17 years and15 years,respectively, despite prosecutors looking for 30 years or more in prison.

Speaking with host Willie Geist, Kirschner said the longer sentences would have been appropriate considering the crimes, but the specter of Donald Trump not currently facing jail time for inciting the Jan. 6 insurrection likely impacted Kelly's decisions.

"You know, we have to accept the fact that they were responding to orders from the president of the United States," he began. "The commander in chief, you know, he was telling these folks, 'Your vote was stolen, your election was rigged. Your president is being unlawfully taken from you and if you don't go to the Capitol and fight like hell, you won't have a country anymore. Now, go down there and stop the certification.'

"Of course, he used the word 'steal,' which is helpful because it provides evidence of Donald Trump's criminal intent, because even he knew it wasn't stolen," he continued. "You know, I reflect on my own experience; I joined the Army in the 1980s and served on active duty 6 1/2 years because I was willing to listen to the commander in chief at the time. I was willing to go somewhere and fight like hell if I was being told, 'If you don't do that, you won't have a country anymore." You know, I would have gone wherever I was deployed."

"Some of these defendants believe Donald Trump and, frankly, you're entitled to believe the president of the United States, even though people who can discern fact from fiction knew Donald Trump was lying," he elaborated. "So I have mixed feelings about sentences that are only half of what the prosecutors are asking for. But I think, in part, it's a recognition that Donald Trump is the one who was really responsible for the crimes and the sentences are reflecting that."

=====================================================

Regarding "a stern lecture from Judge Timothy J. Kelly". the above article didn't elaborate. So, here's an article with more details about what Judge Kelly said:

https://www.politico.com/news/...an-6-attack-00113641

Proud Boys who led march to Capitol get two of the lengthiest sentences since Jan. 6 attack
Joseph Biggs was sentenced to 17 years in prison; Zachary Rehl was sentenced to 15 years.

======================================================

quote:

I wonder if OCPD is a factor in becoming a member of Proud Boys, especially the leaders?

You two got me going.

So, I did a little research, relating to the Proud Boys, Donald Trump and the question of associated mental illness.

If this first youtube video doesn't drive you crazy, then maybe the next two will.

https://youtu.be/2S-k39yypx4?si=F5ceKY7EYu2eSpfo

Proud Boys | Mental Health & Personality

https://youtu.be/TlivH0Gu3Y4?si=xcygDMwMIvRTHfN9

Psychiatrist On ‘The Essential Emptiness Of President Donald Trump’

https://youtu.be/0B4nS1-ScYw?si=iZBbgWvuWHd_d_Kb

“There are Thousands of Us”: Mental Health Professionals Warn of Trump’s Increasing Instability

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...nnel=DemocracyNow%21


====================================================

More sanity: (This is a good one - really)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...hannel=Dr.ToddGrande

Capitol Riot Analysis | What Role Did Narcissism Play?

quote:

Originally posted by Bivoj:

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
Goodness ME has gotten himself all lathered up. This TDS business is bad!

We got ourselves ME Derangement OCPD
Sometimes people simply loose it on here

Listen, you two, and others, anyone interested and curious.

In a way, I appreciate your assessment, even while disagreeing.

At least you are thinking about it - something, and trying in your own way to make sense of it (whatever "it" is).

But, the "it" ain't ME.

The above posts and links about the mental condition of Proud Boys and Trump were too easy to find, and I view them with skepticism. There are many out there, but I chose some that seemed credible. They make sense as far as they go, and may be correct or valid.

But, IMO they don't go far enough. The analysis is too narrow, and much of what they say is obvious. It's been obvious for a long time. Some of those videos are five years old. Yet, they make no difference in the path forward nor Trump's base.

Things have gotten worse over time. Where we are today - the trajectory - was predictable, sadly.

So, specifically for bluefish and Bivoj , here's a five year old video that does go further and broadens the scope of analysis to include us.

If you don't want to watch the whole video, skip fwd to about 6:30. I'm pretty sure watching that will cause you to want to see the whole thing. Another very good segment starts at about 8:40 (the "us" part).

https://youtu.be/QdaBsfu44ps?si=fxwSva_Zd4l6ywtU

The President Isn't Crazy, We Are: Doc-to-Doc with Dr. Allen Frances

"Dr. Allen Frances is a Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at Duke University and the creator of the diagnostic criteria for narcissistic personality disorder. That condition has been in the news frequently, as many have suggested that President Trump may be so afflicted. In his new book, Twilight of American Sanity, Dr. Frances suggests that it is not Trump who is crazy. It is us."

================================================

IMO, the Doc doesn't convince me that Trump isn't crazy. He names a few criteria, one is reward. Well, since this video was made the narcissist rewards may be in question. He also says that congress is the key to taming Trump. Obviously, that didn't happen. The last option to tame Trump is the rule of law, and that's questionable as to effectiveness too. But the main thing he gets into is the "us" thing.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I wonder if OCPD is a factor in becoming a member of Proud Boys, especially the leaders? Here's something I found interesting, related to "derangement" and consequences:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...baa8cb49882ea7&ei=32

Legal expert points finger at Trump after light sentences doled out to Proud Boys leaders
Story by Tom Boggioni •
19h

After a stern lecture from Judge Timothy J. Kelly, former Proud Boy leaders Joseph Biggs and Zachary Rehl were sentenced to 17 years and15 years,respectively, despite prosecutors looking for 30 years or more in prison.

Speaking with host Willie Geist, Kirschner said the longer sentences would have been appropriate considering the crimes, but the specter of Donald Trump not currently facing jail time for inciting the Jan. 6 insurrection likely impacted Kelly's decisions.

"You know, we have to accept the fact that they were responding to orders from the president of the United States," he began. "The commander in chief, you know, he was telling these folks, 'Your vote was stolen, your election was rigged. Your president is being unlawfully taken from you and if you don't go to the Capitol and fight like hell, you won't have a country anymore. Now, go down there and stop the certification.'

"Of course, he used the word 'steal,' which is helpful because it provides evidence of Donald Trump's criminal intent, because even he knew it wasn't stolen," he continued. "You know, I reflect on my own experience; I joined the Army in the 1980s and served on active duty 6 1/2 years because I was willing to listen to the commander in chief at the time. I was willing to go somewhere and fight like hell if I was being told, 'If you don't do that, you won't have a country anymore." You know, I would have gone wherever I was deployed."

"Some of these defendants believe Donald Trump and, frankly, you're entitled to believe the president of the United States, even though people who can discern fact from fiction knew Donald Trump was lying," he elaborated. "So I have mixed feelings about sentences that are only half of what the prosecutors are asking for. But I think, in part, it's a recognition that Donald Trump is the one who was really responsible for the crimes and the sentences are reflecting that."

=====================================================

Regarding "a stern lecture from Judge Timothy J. Kelly". the above article didn't elaborate. So, here's an article with more details about what Judge Kelly said:

https://www.politico.com/news/...an-6-attack-00113641

Proud Boys who led march to Capitol get two of the lengthiest sentences since Jan. 6 attack
Joseph Biggs was sentenced to 17 years in prison; Zachary Rehl was sentenced to 15 years.

======================================================

The orange schmuck ought to be financially responsible for part of their keep. How about $100 per day per incarcerated doofus; and payable in advance.

Even if he had billions of dollars, he couldn't afford to pay the actual costs of the damage he's done, to lives and the country and the planet, perhaps the cosmos.

Here is ONE example of the people who will see to it that history records this era correctly.

Can we learn from it, and things will get better??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...ningwithSteveSchmidt

Aug 26, 2023 The Warning Podcast

Ken Burns on why the Republican Party completely changed | The Warning Podcast

Ken Burns joins Steve to discuss what changed in the Republican party in the last 10-15 years and how we can fix it.

https://youtu.be/CVa7OeCYx4o?si=42bpfQugCC4ADsCN

How to DISQUALIFY Trump under 14th Amendment IMMEDIATELY

41,008 views Sep 2, 2023 Lights On with Jessica Denson

Donald Trump is disqualified from ever holding office again, and the case for why Section 3 of the 14th Amendment must be enforced is gaining more and more traction. Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), joins Jessica Denson to discuss the latest developments, the responsibility of Secretaries of State to keep Trump off the ballot, and the legal actions CREW and others are beginning to take.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...id=socialshare&ei=14

Trump May Need Supreme Court To Say His Coup Attempt Does Not Violate Constitution
Story by S.V. Date •
15h

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...6ef1435ca1b7b&ei=162

Donald Trump’s Election Money To Be Seized ‘If Obtained by Fraud’ — Where Do Frozen Campaign Funds Go?
Story by Vance Cariaga •
11h

In a recent interview with MSNBC, Weissmann said that if Trump’s fundraising finances become a part of Smith’s federal investigation, it could lead to “pretrial forfeiture.” This would result in the money being frozen, Newsweek reported.

Tens of millions of dollars given to Trump’s PAC were reportedly spent on his and other Trump-linked defendants’ legal fees this year, according to Weissman.

“There could be other funds that are available, but if they are funds that have been obtained by fraud — obviously the government would have to prove that — you can get pretrial seizure orders,” he said.

I do not know if Trump's actions constitute engaging in an insurrection, BUT,

If a single nickle of the proceeds from that "January 6th Choir" song he participated in and endorsed goes to anyone convicted of "Seditious Conspiracy" he is demonstrably guilty of providing "aid and comfort" to those who did.

The right wing is certifiably nuts

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...ae19b38c84a1d0&ei=13

quote:

Donald Trump’s Election Money To Be Seized ‘If Obtained by Fraud’

That's an interesting twist, which I had thought about but didn't see any press on it.

What Trump did was in effect the same as a "go fund me" account based in lies, both the BIG LIE and many, many others - a constant stream of lies.

There's probably several campaign laws that apply, plus just plain fraud, state and fed.

Wouldn't that be the chits?

If the disqualification clause requires a criminal conviction for treason or sedition, then it is meaningless as to any politician running for office for the 3-5 years following the act of treason or sedition because that's how long the legal process will take to play out. Suppose trump was at the head of the crowd pushing it's way into the Capital Building on J6. Should he be allowed to run for the presidency then? Or should he be arrested, tried, convicted and then the appellate process begins?

I disagree that a conviction is necessary. It's a determination to be made by the folks in individual states who decide which candidates qualify to be on the ballot.