The House could bar Trump from office by itself

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
37,513
8,103
136

Just read this in the NY Times:

Congress should use its constitutional power to prohibit instigators and perpetrators of last week’s violent siege of the Capitol, including President Trump, from holding public office ever again.

On Monday, House leaders introduced an article of impeachment against the president for “inciting violence against the government of the United States,” an obligatory action, given the gravity of the president’s transgression. But this is not the only route for ensuring accountability. The Constitution has another provision that is tailor-made for the unthinkable, traitorous events of Jan. 6 that goes beyond what impeachment can accomplish.

Emerging from the wreckage of the Civil War, Congress was deeply concerned that former leaders of the Confederacy would take over state and federal offices to once again subvert the constitutional order. To prevent that from happening, Congress passed the 14th Amendment, which in Section 3 bars public officials and certain others who have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the Constitution from serving in public office. Although little known today, Section 3 was used in the post-Civil War era to disqualify former rebels from taking office. And, in the wake of perhaps the boldest domestic attack on our nation’s democracy since the Civil War, Section 3 can once again serve as a critical tool to protect our constitutional order.

The 14th Amendment gives Congress the power to enforce Section 3 through legislation. So Congress can immediately pass a law declaring that any person who has ever sworn to defend the Constitution — from Mr. Trump to others — and who incited, directed, or participated in the Jan. 6 assault “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” and is therefore constitutionally disqualified from holding office in the future.

Congress can also decide how this legislation will be enforced by election officials and the courts, based on all the facts as they come out. The Constitution prohibits Congress from enacting so-called bills of attainder, which single out individuals for guilt. But, in addition to the legislation we suggest, Congress could also pass nonbinding sense-of-Congress resolutions that specify whom they intend to disqualify. This would provide a road map for election officials and judges, should any people named in those resolutions seek to run for or hold public office. And Congress can do this by a simple majority — far less of a hurdle than the two-thirds majority in the Senate that removing the president requires.

-snip-
 

Steltek

Diamond Member
Mar 29, 2001
3,042
753
136
Only problem with this route is that a subsequent (Republican) Congress could simply repeal the law. They've had both chambers before, and they'll eventually have them again. After the way they've acted this year, it is clear that they can't be trusted.

With Trump, it isn't worth taking the chance. If impeachment can be accomplished, it needs to be as that is the only truly permanent bar to his ever again being elected to public office.

On the other hand, if the Senate totally FUBARs it up again, this would be a last possible option though to at least do something.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
37,513
8,103
136
Only problem with this route is that a subsequent (Republican) Congress could simply repeal the law. They've had both chambers before, and they'll eventually have them again. After the way they've acted this year, it is clear that they can't be trusted.

With Trump, it isn't worth taking the chance. If impeachment can be accomplished, it needs to be as that is the only truly permanent bar to his ever again being elected to public office.

On the other hand, if the Senate totally FUBARs it up again, this would be a last possible option though to at least do something.
I don't understand. If passing the law bars Trump from running in 2024, they've accomplished something meaningful, major really. If the GOP at some later time cancels the law, it at least did the job when enacted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ken g6 and Jaskalas

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
62,910
11,305
136
Only problem with this route is that a subsequent (Republican) Congress could simply repeal the law. They've had both chambers before, and they'll eventually have them again. After the way they've acted this year, it is clear that they can't be trusted.

With Trump, it isn't worth taking the chance. If impeachment can be accomplished, it needs to be as that is the only truly permanent bar to his ever again being elected to public office.

On the other hand, if the Senate totally FUBARs it up again, this would be a last possible option though to at least do something.

They can't change or modify the Constitution...that's a MUCH different process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muse

Steltek

Diamond Member
Mar 29, 2001
3,042
753
136
They can't change or modify the Constitution...that's a MUCH different process.

Changing the Constitution doesn't even come in to play here. The NYTimes article is suggesting that Congress simply pass a majority resolution barring him from office.

Fine and dandy, except nothing in the quoted section of the Constitution says a later Congress can't change its mind and repeal its prior action - something it frequently does with legislation to the consternation of all of us. And, again, as previously stated, just because the Dems control the Congress now doesn't mean they aren't going to loose both houses in the 2022 midterms while all those Republican snowflakes who supported Trump (and who are enamored by his fundraising prowness) are still there.

I'm not arguing with the need not to do it. I'm generally a conservative, but that fuckwit tried to overthrow the government of my country by violent means. We need to do what we can to permanently end him as a threat. Impeachment does that, and it also puts the idiots in Congress who supported him on the spot.

If Trump isn't impeached because enough Republican senators won't do the right thing, then this is probably the next best option to throw up obstacles to keep the idiot from running for President again, or for governor in a state where he is popular and people are stupid, or for the Congress itself.

However, a 14th Amendment vote will also break down by party lines and allow Trump to play the sobbing victim for the rest of his life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muse

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
37,513
8,103
136
However, a 14th Amendment vote will also break down by party lines and allow Trump to play the sobbing victim for the rest of his life.
Fools will be fools and anyone who continues to "follow" him going forward is just that. Pathetic.
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
24,817
9,027
136
I’d say this tool is better used on seditious Congresscritters such as Boebert or Taylor-Greene.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,446
7,508
136
I don't understand. If passing the law bars Trump from running in 2024, they've accomplished something meaningful, major really. If the GOP at some later time cancels the law, it at least did the job when enacted.

Yeah, it seems to do the job and works for me if no Republican will stand against the violence at the Capitol.
 

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
9,133
5,072
136
Lol
Just the other day someone asked me what my favorite amendment was.
guess my answer.

One day I will have normal conversations with people.
 

nOOky

Platinum Member
Aug 17, 2004
2,844
1,864
136
Fools will be fools and anyone who continues to "follow" him going forward is just that. Pathetic.

I have a co-irker who is a rabid Trump supporter. But he is also ready to be done with him. Why? Because he got everything done that he wanted anyway. Illegal immigration is down, the wall is being built, the economy will be booming again thanks to his regulatory and tariff genius, and the supreme court is stacked.