The 14th Amendment to the Constitution bans anyone who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the U.S. from holding office.
A Florida lawyer is suing Donald Trump in an attempt to disqualify his current run for president. Lawrence A. Caplan’s Thursday lawsuit claims that the ex-president’s involvement in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot would make him ineligible to run again, thanks to the Constitution’s 14th Amendment—a Civil War-era addition aimed at preventing those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the U.S. from holding office. “Now given that the facts seem to be crystal clear that Trump was involved to some extent in the insurrection that took place on January 6th, the sole remaining question is whether American jurists who swear an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution upon their entry to the bench, will choose to follow the letter of the Constitution in this case,” the lawsuit says, also citing Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia. Legal experts say it’s an uphill battle to argue in court, since the amendment has hardly been exercised in modern history. “Realistically, it’s not a Hail Mary, but it’s just tossing the ball up and hoping it lands in the right place,” Charles Zelden, a professor of history and legal studies at Nova Southeastern University, told the South Florida Sun Sentinel.
archive link to South Florida Sun Sentinel article: https://archive.ph/1BntD
It’s not obvious what it means to “engage in insurrection” without case law defining what that means. What exactly does “insurrection” mean? What types of actions are required for this law to apply?
It’s much more of a gamble.
7 people were convicted already of seditious conspiracy, so either of the conspiracy charges connecting the former president with directing their actions would be pretty strong evidence.
Maybe. That’s what the courts will need to decide. And without prior precedent supporting your argument it’s not as strong as perhaps you think.
totally agreed - I think it needs a conviction to occur before anyone can argue this.
Except the conviction won’t be for insurrection, but for some other related offense so he’ll get away with it on this technicality.
The thing is, it’s pretty clear to basically everyone else. We’re supposee to have confidence in the people who interpret these things for us, but that’s pretty clearly gone too. I’m pretty frightened about where we’re headed because at some point people will get fed up that no one is getting real consequences and start handing them out themselves.
This is just the way of the law and the justice system. You’ve got to prove it.
Is it? Are you sure?
It’s explained in great detail in the federalist papers.
“Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped”
The thing that isn’t clear to everyone all at once is which people are getting away with heinous things with zero consequences. What is clear is that a certain level of society has no consequences. Eventually one side or the other will get fed up and things will get really bad. Whether they’re going after the actual problems is another thing entirely, and the odds are probably better that they’ll be going after the wrong people.
Either way, I see the lack of consequences as the ultimate fuse in this powder keg. One of the main functions of government is to systematize and standardize consequences for unacceptable behavior, and we all agree to abide by rules we don’t necessarily agree to so that at least it’s somewhat consistently applied. In theory. But if government refuses to even give the appearance of doing that, people will take it into their own hands. Human nature has been the way it is way longer than our oldest institutions.
that’s a good point and it helps me understand the problem a bit better. as someone outside the legal system though, it still seems like any sufficiently robust definition of insurrection should cover what he did on january 6th. but i guess having precise definitions is important in a legal setting and that problem still remains.
It doesn’t say convicted, it says “engaged in” and I believe it prevented former Confederates from taking office. So it seems like there’s a pretty big precedent backing it up.