quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
Will Thomas recuse?

Any ethical jurist whose wife was so deeply involved in the effort to overthrow democracy would automatically recuse from anything related, but this is Slappy Thomas, who figures taking millions from billionaires to stay on the Court is perfectly ethical...

I'm surprised you would even ask the question. I mean, I get it....it's obvious he should recuse. But, he won't.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Judge J. Michael Luttig, agrees w you ME and not me. I have a lot of respect for Judge (retired) Luttig.

The Supreme Court is going to have to make a difficult decision.

“It is of surpassing and obvious importance that voters know whether the former president will be found guilty by a jury of having committed grave crimes against the United States before they vote in November of this coming year,” said Michael Luttig, a former conservative judge on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

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

As I have said several times, this is first about a contest between the rule of law, and an alternative. Coincidentally and unavoidably it's political. There is no doubt that Trump loyalists and enablers will twist the rule of law and clear Trump. They won't stop there. It's as plain as it can be.

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


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...b306f5b6625dec&ei=34

What Jack Smith won't say
Story by By Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein • 13h

Special counsel Jack Smith wants the Supreme Court to move at blazing speed to keep Donald Trump’s Washington, D.C. criminal trial on track. He just won’t — and perhaps can’t — say precisely why.

None of the prosecutor’s calls for expedience have squarely explained why he wants the case to advance with urgency rarely seen in criminal proceedings. Yet there’s not much mystery behind the subtext of Smith’s plea to the justices: If Trump can use the plodding pace of the courts to force delays in his criminal trials — and then retakes the White House in 2024 — he may never see the inside of a courtroom again.

As president, Trump could order the Justice Department to shut down lingering federal cases, and he could pardon his alleged co-conspirators and perhaps even himself. State-level prosecutions in New York and Georgia would likely be suspended for years while Trump remained in the White House.
That reality has been the ever-present backdrop of Smith’s entire investigation. Yet his determination to avoid explicitly mentioning it has left glaring gaps in his arguments.

“This is all about trying to get it done before the election. But that’s not something that Jack Smith can overtly admit,” said Timothy Parlatore, one of Trump’s former defense attorneys, “because then that admits that it is at least in part election-related.”

That vague paean to the public interest stops well short of saying what everyone — including the high court — already knows.

“If this case doesn’t get tried before the election, and if he wins, then it will likely never be tried,” Parlatore said. “That is a reality. So you could sit there and say, ‘It needs to be done now because if it’s not done now it will never be done.’”

“But, in doing so,” Parlatore added, “that also admits that it is to affect who wins the election.”

The dynamic underscores the awkward position Smith is facing as he pilots what would be the first-ever criminal trial of a former president — who also happens to be the frontrunner for the GOP nomination in the 2024 election. It’s anathema in court to link almost any proceedings to a compressed political calendar, and factoring in Trump’s potential victory in 2024 requires a degree of political forecasting that courts detest.

Indeed, the Justice Department’s regulations discourage actions that would be viewed as affecting the course of an election. So Smith has been left alluding to the risks of delay without precisely explaining why speed is of utmost significance. And his silence has allowed his prominent supporters in legal and political circles to fill in the blanks for him.

It has also allowed Trump to attempt to define the answer for him. A spokesperson for Trump’s campaign said the filings show Smith “flailing about in desperation.” In his own Supreme Court filing Wednesday, Trump urged the justices to refuse Smith’s entreaties for “haste,” saying Smith’s silence on the reason for his demand, backed by “the vaguest of justifications,” betrays a corrupt political motive to damage Joe Biden’s likeliest 2024 opponent. His attorneys described the lack of elaboration as “an omission that speaks volumes.”

In his Thursday filing, Smith managed to reject that assertion without repeating it, simply dismissing Trump's claims as “unfounded and incorrect.”

Barb McQuade, a former U.S. attorney for the eastern district of Michigan, said Smith’s insistence on a speedy trial for Trump appears “legal and not political.” The trial is currently scheduled to open on March 4, but it cannot begin until the question of Trump's immunity is settled.

“A speedy trial is necessary to ensure that evidence is available, witnesses’ memories are fresh, and jurors are able to find their recollections credible,” McQuade noted, adding that if Trump were elected in 2024, his trial could be pushed until 2029 or beyond. “At that point, the public’s interest in a speedy trial has been defeated.”

Asked about the likelihood that Trump would use his power as president to end the criminal cases he’s facing, McQuade added, “I don’t think that is a proper concern for Jack Smith. … I don’t think he can presume bad faith on the part of Donald Trump, even if it is likely.”

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

Also:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...fdae44c07df51&ei=112

Jack Smith Hits Back at Trump In Scathing Respone Against Delaying Supreme Court Immunity Appeal
Story by Tommy Christopher • 6h

Special Counsel Jack Smith hit back at former President Donald Trump’s motion to delay the Supreme Court’s review of his criminal immunity claim in a scathing filing.

Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s request they take up the issue of presidential immunity after Judge Tanya Chutkan denied two motions to dismiss from Trump’s team, based on First Amendment and presidential immunity claims.

Trump and his lawyers responded with a filing demanding the Court wait until the lower appeals court rules on the issue.

On Thursday, Smith filed a scathing response opposing Trump’s motion, writing:

Respondent agrees that the important constitutional question in this case will require this Court’s review. But he maintains that the Court should wait for the appellate process to unfold below so that this Court has the benefit of the court of appeals’ decision. Br. in Opp. 17-21. That suggestion is misguided. The public interest in a prompt resolution of this case favors an immediate, definitive decision by this Court. The charges here are of the utmost gravity. This case involves—for the first time in our Nation’s history—criminal charges against a former President based on his actions while in office. And not just any actions: alleged acts to perpetuate himself in power by frustrating the constitutionally prescribed process for certifying the lawful winner of an election. The Nation has a compelling interest in a decision on respondent’s claim of immunity from these charges—and if they are to be tried, a resolution by conviction or acquittal, without undue delay.

Given respondent’s categorical immunity claim over every act alleged in the indictment—all of which, he contends, fall within the outer perimeter of his “official” duties, see Br. in Opp. 8, 16—this Court’s review is essential to allow this case to move forward. Only this Court can provide the final word on his immunity defense. Certiorari before judgment will allow the Court to set a schedule for briefing and argument to assure that respondent’s immunity claim will be resolved as expeditiously as possible.

He also pointed out at least one pretty glaring flaw in Trump’s filing:

Respondent’s other arguments provide no sound reason to deny immediate review. He asserts that the government lacks standing to bring an appeal. But the government is not seeking to appeal the district court’s order. Respondent himself has appealed that order.

Smith concluded:
Finally, respondent’s claims about the reasons why the government is seeking review are unfounded and incorrect. See Br. in Opp. 21-24. Respondent stands accused of serious crimes because the grand jury followed the facts and applied the law. The government seeks this Court’s resolution of the immunity claim so that those charges may be promptly resolved, whatever the result.

For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the petition, the petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment should be granted.

https://youtu.be/KuPIvrkcYW8?si=V5JhaaRG3IAFldM9

Supreme Court makes announcement we’ve been waiting for

https://youtu.be/9jGXZ582Cvw?si=GipRwujMxUdAxKLD

Surprise element of Trump's disqualification SURGES into spotlight

Recognized Conservative Judge Michael Luttig agrees w you ME.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Recognized Conservative Judge Michael Luttig agrees w you ME.

I saw that, but didn't post it. He's credible.

There is lots of agreement. But the wild card is what those conservative partizans on SCOTUS will rationalize.

I like to give S. Ct., precedent and actual names to those I base my positions on.

Unlike some who state “the Constitutional Scholars I follow.”

That said, I do not agree and expect bad law to be made. We shall see.

Like I told Bluefish: This issue is for the S. Ct., to resolve. Short of disregarding long standing precedent or positions taking during confirmation before the Senate, I shall respect the decision of the Court. Whether I agree is not relevant. This, I respect the S.Ct., having this authority to decide delegated by the Constitution. The alternative is Civil War or a nation of man and not law.

Now, we can have a conversation if this particular S. Ct., majority retains the legitimacy to make this decision while still holding the authority to do so under the Constitution.

Justice Thomas needs to recuse from this matter given his wife’s involvement in spreading the big lie. That would strongly help the Court’s legitimacy.

quote:

That said, I do not agree and expect bad law to be made. We shall see.

Indeed.

Thomas should recuse himself, but he won't. And there is no mechanism in the Court's code of conduct for itself to disqualify him.

The foundational question is whether Trump's actions rise to the level of insurrection, during a civil disturbance at the level of a panty raid.

Has Trump been charged with criminal insurrection?

I do not think “insurrection” is charged under the Federal Criminal Codes.

The Confederates were indicted by Federal Grand Juries, but President Johnson under pressure from the likes of Grant granted pardons and clemency preventing federal trials. This also neutralized the Insurrection Clause in the crib as a pardon is a pardon.

Lee and the like were indicted specifically for treason. Lee’s indictment also charged war crimes along w treason. I believe his actions were treason. President Lincoln believed in making peace. His assignation was the worst thing that could have happened to the defeated Confederacy/Southern States in rebellion.


It is an open question if allowing those who enacted secession to regain citizenship did more harm than good in the long run as opposed to hard justice.

For a long time, I deferred to Grant on the issue in Grant’s advocacy for President Lincoln’s vision.

quote:

Originally posted by TomP:
The foundational question is whether Trump's actions rise to the level of insurrection, during a civil disturbance at the level of a panty raid.

Has Trump been charged with criminal insurrection?

https://wapo.st/48ItjOu

Colorado Supreme Court ruling that disqualified Trump

Colorado Supreme Court barred former president Donald Trump from running in the state’s presidential primary after determining that he had engaged in insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.

https://apnews.com/article/tru...531ded8975a651127cde

Trump appeals Maine ruling barring him from ballot under the Constitution’s insurrection clause

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

It is my understanding that the appeals of the Colorado and the Maine decisions are not about reversing the insurrection rulings, but other reasons. Also, as I understand it, a criminal conviction of insurrection is not a prerequisite of the 14th provision. Adjudicated due process is satisfied in the civil case in Colorado, and that part was sustained on appeal to the CO supreme court.

Also, the "panty raid" on 1/6 is not the whole story. There were the fake electors, and much planning specifically for thwarting the constitutional transfer of power on 1/6, all at the behest of Trump and his allies.

https://youtu.be/Ll4DFbHrOmA?si=4ID0CkD-YzJCtUIf

Judge Luttig: Trump disqualification ‘does not require a criminal conviction’

As lawsuits in multiple states seeking to disqualify Trump from the ballot in 2024 pick up steam, Judge J. Michael Luttig joins Ali Velshi to discuss the debate surrounding the 14th Amendment's disqualification clause, the argument being made by Trump’s lawyers in response to the cases, and why lawyers and the public have misunderstood the wording of Section 3. “Frankly, all parties to this different litigation in the various states, to this point, have misunderstood Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. As I said, it disqualifies one who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States . It does not, by its term, disqualify one who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States or the authority of the United States… and there is a world of constitutional difference between those two.”

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

https://news.yahoo.com/former-...ation-220544643.html

Former federal judge: Trump’s violation of 14th Amendment ‘couldn’t be any clearer’
Lauren Irwin
Sat, January 6, 2024 at 5:05 PM EST·2 min read

(excerpts)

The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments in the case on Feb. 8.

Luttig, who said he has spent the last three years studying the amendment, believes the high court — which currently leans Republican — will “likely look for every legitimate way possible” to avoid an opinion on whether Trump can be disqualified from running for office again.

However, Luttig said there are “very few, if any, off-ramps” that would allow the nation’s highest court to avoid making that decision.

The 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause prohibits anyone from holding office if they have “engaged in insurrection” after previously taking an oath to support the Constitution.

Luttig previously argued that the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision is not “anti-democratic,” but rather Trump’s conduct that prompted the disqualification was anti-democratic.

“What the American public is going to come to understand is that the Constitution of the United States is what will forbid the former President from … holding the office of the presidency again, if that’s the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States,” Luttig said Saturday.

“So that is not a question … that’s open to the American people,” he continued. “The Constitution, the United States has settled this issue, beginning with the ratification of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in 1868, provided that that’s what the Supreme Court of the United States holds.”

Luttig suggested that the “framers of the 14th Amendment envisioned precisely this moment” — when a president would attempt to remain in power after losing an election. He said the disqualification clause is “perhaps the most democratic provision” in the Constitution.

“This will be one of the most consequential Supreme Court decisions for both American democracy and for American politics since the founding of the nation,” he said.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...bdc7b7edc91cb7&ei=38

Trump didn't even write his tweet urging January 6 protesters to remain 'peaceful': report
Story by lloydlee@insider.com (Lloyd Lee) • 41m

So the fact that Thomas’ wife is not particularly well informed or well behaved makes him need to recuse himself?

I don’t necessarily disagree, but that means we can’t have romantically involved folks as judges as I kind of bet everyone has some political baggage, it’s just Mrs. Thomas’ are publicly known. Somehow I bet Sotomayor’s or Kayan’s spouses are pretty solid democrats.

Should they recuse because of that?

I tend to agree there should be some sort of publicly available code of conduct that spells it out in detail what requires recusal and there should be some teeth in it… but the current system is pretty weak.

She has a special relationship (a legal status) being his wife, that calls into reasonable question his impartiality. Any other judge on the US would have to recuse given that relationship.

A special relationship such as a spouse is a relationship that by its nature creates undue influence by law.

In most states the spousal relationship, or other sexual relationship, is the main special relationship that undue influence shall be inferred from.

She has publicly and privately engaged in the election false controversy. Justice Thomas should recuse. Any other Judge in the U.S. would be made to to do so.

And that your spouse has political beliefs means you must recuse when their politics are part of the question?

How far down the rabbit hole of spousal influence do we go?

My point being that if your spouse donated to either party, or you did, then you would have to recuse, and that’s probably a vast majority of jurists.

When my wife takes a political posture on a matter that I have to litigate as counsel for the Commonwealth or as a judge, the answer is yes.

The Special Relationship created the conflict.

One of my Judges’ spouse is a parole officer. He has been told by the Administrative Offices of the Courts, and the Judicial Ethics Committee he shall not hear any case she has any connection to.

So if Trump is disqualified in some states, but still runs, What happens in those states if he wins?

I have no doubt the S.Ct., will resolved this nationally.

I thought that as far as elections go, states were independent? That technically this isn't a federal issue?

They are litigating definitions.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/s...-about-supreme-court

Payments made to Justice Thomas’ wife raise more ethical questions about Supreme Court
May 5, 2023 6:45 PM EST

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/p...o-the-jan-6-hearings

Who is Ginni Thomas and why is she important to the Jan. 6 hearings?
Politics Updated on Jun 20, 2022 3:47 PM EST — Published on Jun 17, 2022 4:07 PM EST

https://www.google.com/search?...nt=gws-wiz-serp#ip=1

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
They are litigating definitions.

I think there is a lot more to it than that, and that's an understatement.

This video is a direct answer to your claim, re the Colorado case and the 14th and the insurrection. I skipped ahead on the video to 8:45

https://youtu.be/xyKRHz0hfHM?s...0fqCksOKs4RUa9&t=525

I did a search on: "latest status appeals to the supreme court regarding jack smith's prosecution". I could have worded it different but that's what I thought of.

Results - take your pick:

https://www.google.com/search?...w=1528&bih=838&dpr=2

After all, it's the "panty raid":

quote:

Originally posted by TomP:
The foundational question is whether Trump's actions rise to the level of insurrection, during a civil disturbance at the level of a panty raid.

Has Trump been charged with criminal insurrection?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...90b27261bf2f4f&ei=89

https://www.msn.com/en-us/vide...cid=socialshare&t=40

And Trump's lifelong dream for the country:

https://youtu.be/i_g2q9OubB8?si=Ty8UkEMriJPfsfl0

https://youtu.be/xyKRHz0hfHM?si=Vcfr78ugEbCzbss7

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
I thought that as far as elections go, states were independent? That technically this isn't a federal issue?

We are a hybrid system. The Constitution which creates the Federal Government sets who may run for a Federal Office. The basic issue in this matter is Whether the Constitution as amended by the 14th Amendment, Insurrection Clause applies to President Trump’s actions disqualifying him under the Constitution so amended from being a candidate for President.

There are other carve outs for Federal Regulation such as the Voting Rights Act and racial gerrymandering which are based on Federal principles.

Here's a sensible article/analysis:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...16a705a708ecf3&ei=28

The Supreme Court’s Silver-Bullet Solution to the 14th Amendment Problem
Story by Elie Honig • 6h

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...48e4ab38322c20&ei=91

Supreme Court Could Dodge Trump Ruling via 'Off Ramps'
Story by Ewan Palmer • 6h

The Supreme Court may rule on whether Donald Trump can remain on the ballot in Colorado without deciding whether the former president engaged in an insurrection

It worked here.

https://www.citizensforethics....uary-6-insurrection/

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:
It worked here.

https://www.citizensforethics....uary-6-insurrection/

Others are also vulnerable, especially several republicans in congress.

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

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...17939d345a2c9&ei=157

Trump urges Supreme Court to keep his name on ballot, warns of ‘bedlam’
Story by Ann Marimow • 14h

(excerpt)

Trump’s attorney asked the justices to put a “swift and decisive end” to efforts in more than 30 states to remove him from primary and general election ballots based on a section of the 14th Amendment that bars those who have engaged in insurrection from holding office.

The efforts to disqualify the leading Republican primary contender in the 2024 election, his lawyer Jonathan Mitchell wrote, “threaten to disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans” and “promise to unleash chaos and bedlam if other state courts and state officials follow Colorado’s lead.”
The language echoed remarks Trump made last week after an appeals court hearing in a separate case, in which Trump’s lawyers said he should be immune from prosecution for trying to overturn the 2020 election.

Speaking to reporters afterward, Trump warned that if the criminal charges against him succeed in damaging his candidacy, “It’ll be bedlam in the country. It’s a very bad thing. It’s a very bad precedent. As we said, it’s the opening of a Pandora’s box.”

The brief filed Thursday was a precursor to oral arguments on the Colorado ballot case that the high court has scheduled for Feb. 8 — an expedited timetable that ensures the justices will play a major role in shaping this year’s presidential election.

Whatever the justices decide is expected to resolve the issue nationwide as primary voting gets underway after this week’s Iowa caucuses, in which Trump scored a decisive win. The first state primary will be on Tuesday in New Hampshire.

Trump’s opening brief reiterates the former president’s assertions that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was not an insurrection. He says Section 3 does not apply to the office of the president and state courts cannot enforce the constitutional provision. Lastly, he says Colorado’s rules do not allow a state court to order the top election official to remove a candidate from the presidential primary ballot.

“And even if President Trump were subject to section 3 he did not ‘engage in’ anything that qualifies as ‘insurrection.’ The Court should reverse on these grounds and end these unconstitutional disqualification efforts once and for all,” his lawyer told the justices.

In the lead up to the highly-anticipated argument over Trump’s ballot eligibility, dozens of advocacy groups, academics, politicians and former government officials have begun filing briefs in support of either the former president or the six Colorado voters challenging Trump’s eligibility.

Attorneys for those voters have said that the Constitution’s language barring insurrectionists from office is clear, that it applies to presidents and that it does not require an act of Congress to be enforced.

In asking the justices to quickly review the matter, they said the high court should uphold the finding from Colorado that the former president intentionally incited his supporters to violence on Jan. 6 to disrupt the certification of the election — and exacerbated the attack while it was ongoing.

An amicus brief in support of keeping Trump on the ballot that was submitted Thursday included the signatures of nearly 180 congressional Republicans . Among them was Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has largely steered clear of the 2024 Republican president race and who previously said Trump was responsible for provoking the 2021 insurrection.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...927197fad9631f&ei=55

Nine Supreme Court Justices are being called upon to save democracy - can they do it?

With an insurrectionist who routinely threatens his political opponents and the free press running for president, American democracy is currently facing an existential crisis. Adding to that challenge is the U.S. Supreme Court, which has a right-wing majority and will ultimately decide whether Donald Trump can pursue the nation's highest office. Yet somehow, many Americans continue to downplay this danger, embracing a belief that autocracy could never happen in the United States and that the threat is overblown. But we only need to look to our own history to understand the consequences of normalizing such extremism. Kermit Roosevelt III, constitutional law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, joined Ali Velshi to discuss the impact of today’s highly politicized Supreme Court.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...6a06ba40c96161&ei=26

Maine's top court dismisses appeal of judge's decision on Trump ballot status
Story by By DAVID SHARP, Associated Press • 1h

PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — Maine’s top court Wednesday evening declined to weigh in on whether former President Donald Trump can stay on the state's ballot, keeping intact a judge's decision that the U.S. Supreme Court must first rule on a similar case in Colorado.


The timelines are tight as Maine's March 5 primary approaches. The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments on the Colorado case on Feb. 8, and Maine has already begun mailing overseas ballots.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...a5&ei=8&sc=shoreline

The conservative legal world lines up behind Donald Trump at the Supreme Court
Story by By Joan Biskupic, CNN Senior Supreme Court Analyst •
3h

As Donald Trump wages a Supreme Court battle to stay on state presidential ballots, a potent contingent of the conservative legal world has united behind him.

His new principal attorney for the case, Jonathan Mitchell, is a former Supreme Court clerk connected to the right-wing elite who devised the 2021 Texas abortion ban that helped lead to reversal of the Roe v. Wade landmark decision. The Texas law, which included a shrewd mechanism impeding judicial review, prompted liberal Justice Elena Kagan to refer disparagingly to its masterminds as “some geniuses.”

Also backing Trump, with “friend of the court” briefs, are the Republican National Committee and GOP establishment forces, similarly represented by elite appellate advocates who’ve worked for the justices and speak their language. They include former Trump Solicitor General Noel Francisco, George W. Bush-era legal adviser John Yoo and other ex-clerks of conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

The leading Republican presidential candidate appears to be benefitting from ideological kinship, and perhaps personal loyalty, in the case that arose in Colorado but will have nationwide implications for the November general election.

https://youtu.be/KIycMXs2O2I?si=sqtlLpLJ4tBuHH8e

Retired conservative federal judge urges Supreme Court to disqualify Trump from office

Retired conservative Judge J. Michael Luttig argued that the Supreme Court should keep Donald Trump off the ballot in 2024. Former January 6 committee senior investigative counsel Temidayo Aganga-Williams discusses Luttig's argument.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...98d3ca0937c318&ei=14

Historical Precedent Cited by Scholars in Brief to Supreme Court on Trump's 2024 Ballot Eligibility
Story by Jacob Miller • 7h

As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to deliberate the eligibility of former President Donald Trump for the 2024 presidential ballot, a group of eminent historians specializing in American history have filed an amicus brief arguing the application of the Constitution’s insurrection clause to Trump. The brief, submitted by 25 scholars with expertise in the Civil War, Reconstruction, and American political history, supports efforts by Colorado and several other states to remove Trump from the ballot based on the insurrectionist clause of the 14th Amendment.

The collective emphasized their “professional interests in helping” the Supreme Court in determining the applicability of a specific clause in the 14th Amendment to a president and whether such application necessitates further congressional action, all achieved through a meticulous examination of compelling historical evidence.
The brief asserts, “For historians, contemporary evidence from the decision-makers who sponsored, backed, and voted for the 14th Amendment is most probative. Analysis of this evidence demonstrates that decision-makers crafted Section 3 to cover the President and to create an enduring check on insurrection, requiring no additional action from Congress.”

Historians argue that this amendment’s provision extends beyond preventing former Confederates from holding governmental roles. They assert that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment acts as a safeguard against government corruption by individuals involved in future insurrections, despite having pledged allegiance to the U.S. Constitution.

Recently, lawyers leading the effort to prevent Trump from appearing on the ballot filed a petition urging the Supreme Court to declare him ineligible for office due to his role in the attempted January 6 coup. The petition included detailed accounts of Trump’s actions leading up to the attack.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits individuals engaged in insurrection from holding office, was largely considered obsolete after Congress granted amnesty in 1872 to most former Confederates targeted by the provision. However, lawmakers at the time clarified that the Amnesty Act did not pardon “future insurrectionists,” though historians argue that granting amnesty to Confederates had negative repercussions.

The historians emphasized in their brief to the Supreme Court that after the amnesty granted to former Confederates, many of them ascended to leadership positions in Southern states, including governorships and other statewide offices, state legislative roles, and local offices. They highlighted that these individuals had not held office before receiving amnesty, and at least 20 ex-Confederates who had sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution served as governors of former Confederate states post-amnesty.

Furthermore, they pointed out that these pardoned former Confederates played a significant role in implementing racial discrimination in the South, undermining the intent of the Reconstruction-era 14th and 15th Amendments aimed at safeguarding the civil and political rights of formerly enslaved individuals. They noted that white supremacists, who regained power in the 1870s, used violence, intimidation, and discriminatory laws to suppress Black rights, establishing Jim Crow discrimination.

Currently, legal challenges questioning Trump’s eligibility for office are ongoing in more than a dozen states. The outcome of these challenges will be determined by a ruling from the Supreme Court, which is scheduled to begin hearing arguments in the case on February 8th.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...3f9d39ca0cccc7&ei=27

Even Jefferson Davis recognized Section III 'automatically disqualified him': Dozens of historians urge Supreme Court to remove Trump from ballot 2024 ballot
Story by Brandi Buchman • 5h

And, the election of Thomas Jefferson (and his counting of electors as V.P.), Aaron Burr’s tie and Alexander Hamilton’s attempts to buy a change of New York’s vote…. fits in somewhere.

.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...3f9d39ca0cccc7&ei=27

Even Jefferson Davis recognized Section III 'automatically disqualified him': Dozens of historians urge Supreme Court to remove Trump from ballot 2024 ballot
Story by Brandi Buchman • 5h

While I cannot dispute the fact. Three distinctions:

1) We still had a peaceful transition of power. Armed mobs or state militias did not march upon Congress to install a candidate.

2) We had a legitimate and due exercise of Congress’ power to transition the government. Despite, some opinions here the legitimacy of the election and how Congress was transitioning given effect to the Lee results are not in question.

And

3) We should repeat bad behavior or excuse current bad behavior with the bad behavior of the past? The answer to that is no.

Please proofread. I have no idea what your last clause means.

Did we not have a peaceful transition of power in 2021? Where were the troops in the streets and palace coup? I don’t deny there were badly behaving protestors and a few who were trying to subvert the election… but with the exception of the breaking and entering and subsequent prosecutions, what was the real difference between the pussy hat parade of 2017 and 1/6/21?

Rhetoric was the same, agitation was the same, behaviors were similar…

And the current holder of the office did his job.

There was no chance that the proud boys were going to stop the transfer of power.

The fact that only one person was shot is prima facia evidence that the violence that the left is going on about is being overstated.

That’s not condoning what happened, but it is condemning the attempt by the left to use this as a political tactic.

I agree with you that Trump fully displayed his lack of character and appropriateness for the office; but then all the press machinations are actually going to do more to normalize this inappropriate behavior than anything else.

The left isn’t offering anything really dramatically better, are they?

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
While I cannot dispute the fact. Three distinctions:

1) We still had a peaceful transition of power. Armed mobs or state militias did not march upon Congress to install a candidate.

2) We had a legitimate and due exercise of Congress’ power to transition the government. Despite, some opinions here the legitimacy of the election and how Congress was transitioning given effect to the Lee results are not in question.

And

3) We should repeat bad behavior or excuse current bad behavior with the bad behavior of the past? The answer to that is no.

No, we did not have a peaceful transition of power.

Any one who would imply we did is a not to be taken serious.

Some factors that demonstrate it was not a peaceful transition of power;

200 felony convictions,
700 convictions,
armed mob breeching a police line,
Congress having to be secured with armed guards,
chants to hang the VP,
an intruder having to be shot,
And
the count stopped until those committing violence were disbursed


No, we did not have a peaceful transition of power.

There is nothing wrong grammatically with my last clause. Judge G is attempting to minimize Jan 6 identifying the less then appropriate behavior of the CP concerning the election of Jefferson. That bad behavior has no mitigation upon what happened on Jan6. Jefferson’s election impropriety have no mitigation upon President Trump’s actions before and during Jan 6.

Yes, President Biden is head and shoulders better. He never engaged in refusing to defend the transition of power. In fact, he gaveled down every objection. President Biden supports a bill, supported by Republicans in the Senate to address the border.

President Trump refused to defend Congress, the election, the Republic in order to maintain power he had no right to keep. It is the unpardonable, political sin.

I should have added in #2.

" Despite, some opinions here the legitimacy of the election and how Congress was transitioning given effect to the Lee results are not in question."

As to:
"No, we did not have a peaceful transition of power.

Any one who would imply we did is a not to be taken serious.

Some factors that demonstrate it was not a peaceful transition of power;

200 felony convictions,
700 convictions,
armed mob breeching a police line,
Congress having to be secured with armed guards,
chants to hang the VP,
an intruder having to be shot,
And
the count stopped until those committing violence were disbursed


No, we did not have a peaceful transition of power."

that depend on what your definition of peaceful is.

Trump's inauguration had protests and lots of arrests.

Obama's ditto.

"W"'s also.

I get what you are upset about, and agree its not appropriate in this great country... but its not a civil war.

I would be willing to bet that if Trump would win the election (god forbid) that what happens will make 1/6 look like child's play.

btw, disbursed does not mean what you are saying. Unless you have proof they got paid?

Not trying to minimize or excuse anything. Just pointing out that a prior V.P. used his position to (most probably) control who became POTUS. And he now has a monument in D.C. Wouldn’t it be ironic if Trump had one 200 years from now.

I didn’t “imply” what you “inferred”. And those two words may be the most important ones in Trump’s Jan. 6 trial.

quote:

There is nothing wrong grammatically with my last clause. Judge G is attempting to minimize Jan 6 identifying the less then appropriate behavior of the CP concerning the election of Jefferson. That bad behavior has no mitigation upon what happened on Jan6. Jefferson’s election impropriety have no mitigation upon President Trump’s actions before and during Jan 6.