Democrats float 14th Amendment to bar Trump from office

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...w0g?li=BBnb7Kz


Democrats are mulling whether they can use the 14th Amendment to prevent former President Trump from ever holding office again.
© Bonnie Cash Democrats float 14th Amendment to bar Trump from office The discussions are in the early stages - and top members of the Senate caucus aren't yet convinced it's a viable remedy - but senators are exploring their options as they plot a strategy after Trump's supporters stormed the Capitol.

"It's an idea that's out there that I think people are contemplating in the accountability space," said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who described himself as "quite confident" that Congress could act under the constitutional amendment.
"I just want us to choose a path that maximizes focus on the Biden-Harris agenda," Kaine added.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who caveated that talk of the 14th Amendment was hypothetical, said it could be applied to Trump, with one mechanism being a resolution from Congress.
"The remedies of the 14th Amendment certainly may be appropriate for someone who incites an insurrection as Donald Trump did," said Blumenthal, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), cautioned that it was early, but called using the 14th Amendment "certainly a possibility."
"All of these are questions of first impression, in terms of constitutionality," he added. "I certainly think there is a 14th Amendment avenue separate and aside from impeachment."
The possibility of using the 14th Amendment comes as Democrats have publicly called for Trump to be blocked from holding office down the line. Trump riled up his supporters on Jan. 6 at a rally outside the White House and urged them to march to the Capitol, where rioters subsequently stormed the building in a melee that left five people dead.
Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) has already pledged to hold a vote on blocking Trump from holding future office if the Senate votes to convict him as part of an impeachment trial for "willfully inciting violence against the Government of the United States." Though conviction requires two-thirds support, barring him from office in a subsequent vote would take only a simple majority.
"After what he has done, the consequences of which we were all witness to, Donald Trump should not be eligible to run for office ever again," Schumer said on the Senate floor earlier this week.
The House is expected to send the lone impeachment article to the Senate on Monday, though Schumer noted he was discussing timing and the duration of the trial with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Absent an agreement, the trial will start at 1 p.m. the day after the article is received, unless that's a Sunday.

Video: Senator says impeachment trial delay is ‘appropriate’ (ABC News)





Current Time 0:06
/

Duration 6:04
0
Senator says impeachment trial delay is ‘appropriate’

• 

To convict Trump in an impeachment trial, Democrats would need their entire caucus plus 17 Republican senators, a high bar that they could fail to reach. Though several GOP senators and McConnell have blamed Trump for provoking the mob that stormed the Capitol, no Senate Republican has committed to voting to convict.
Kaine noted that the 14th Amendment could be pursued before or even after a trial if senators weren't able to convict Trump. He added that while there were "extensive discussions" going on about pursuing the 14th Amendment, the decision was ultimately up to leadership.
Spokesmen for Schumer didn't respond to a question about whether he supports trying to use the 14th Amendment separate from an impeachment trial.
The 14th Amendment jumped into the national discussion in the wake of the Capitol attack, in addition to impeachment and talk of invoking the 25th Amendment, an idea rejected by then-Vice President Pence.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says that no public officials who had "previously taken an oath" to support the Constitution will hold office if they "have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
But there's skepticism from some high-ranking Democrats that the 14th Amendment could be used to block Trump from holding future office.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Schumer's No. 2, noted that he had a "long conversation" with Kaine but wasn't yet sold on the idea that it could be pursued without Trump being convicted first.
"I haven't been convinced yet because the 14th Amendment is not explicit on how you determine whether someone participated in an insurrection. ... There is a real serious question if that conviction has not taken place, whether the Congress can have a finding, or the Senate can have a finding, that they're guilty of insurrection and whether that's sufficient. So it's unresolved," Durbin said.
Section 5 of the 14th Amendment stipulates that Congress has enforcement power "by appropriate legislation."
But using the 14th Amendment to remove a president would put Congress in murky waters, both legally and politically.
The University of Virginia's Philip Zelikow recently wrote in Lawfare that "Congress can apply the 14th Amendment disqualification to Trump, by majority vote."
But University of Chicago Law School's Daniel Hemel countered that barring Trump with only a simple majority vote "would raise serious constitutional questions."
"Trump's defenders would no doubt argue that the law violates the bill of attainder clause, and unlike many of Trump's legal arguments, this one would be far from frivolous," he added.
Instead, Hemel said, a better way would be for Congress to set up a judicial proceeding that would determine if someone was disqualified under Section 3 of the amendment.
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) said he wanted more information, but questioned whether Congress needed to act in order for Trump to be blocked from future office.
"He may already be barred," Cardin said.
Kaine, meanwhile, floated the idea that invoking the 14th Amendment against Trump could take several paths, but one option would be passing a resolution, which he believes would take 60 votes in the Senate, requiring the support of at least 10 Republicans.
"It would be a 60 vote threshold," he said. "And it wouldn't require a trial. It would be a debate on a resolution ... so take less time, easier threshold. If you can't get to 60, you won't get to 67."


hateful, hateful DPST/ccp party - because Trump and his support of Freedoms of the Constitution for the People against marxist terrrorism of teh DPST/CCP party - terrifies the terrorists.

They deeply fear their CCP terroist agenda being upended - and are enraged at Trump for his ideas - and will stop at nothing to destroy the ideas and ideals of teh Constitution they hate deeply.

so they persecute an ousted Trump - whom they brayed and howled would ahve to be removed by 'Force' - remember that ( oh that is history- and ignored by the DPST/CCPers)


I guess there is one good thing in the american tragedy in the way the marxist DPSY/CCP party terrorists treat teh office of POTUS - it does distract them from their open borders, soylent green new deal, marxist ascendant and hatred of capitalism and freedom of eh American people agenda!


At a price - they tarnish themselves with their hatred - Trump will not run again for POTUS - they are simply trying to destroy what they HATE!
What they hate - is ideals and Principles of the freedom of teh People of america - and wono't so easily be destroyed - even though they send their jackboot terrorist minions to seize trump at midnight - never to be seen again in the bowels of their PC prisons for the AOC re-education camps.



Minions - when they come for You - there will be no One to speak for You.

Stalinist hatred is ascendant in the new Age of the DPST/CCP party!

- but senators are exploring their options as they plot a strategy after Trump's supporters stormed the Capitol.

! Originally Posted by oeb11

its not so much that the people who stormed the capitol were trump supporters

if you scratched them, you'd likely find just beneath the surface they were anti-dimocrat party people more than trump supporters

they were trump supporters in the sense they sure weren't going to support America haters

so whoever wrote the article could have called them people against the dimocrat party, which would have had more precision, than just calling them trump supporters

Agreed - and well written NGIT.

Still i support peaceful protest - and that was not when they trespassed into the Capitol.

That is not peaceful protest - regardless that they took the long term lesson of teh DPST/CCP terrorist arms in Seattle, portland, minneapolis, and other DPST/CCP run shithole cities.


let Conservatives not lower themselves to the level of the howling, braying , censoring authoritarian DPST/CCP party.

I hope they do it soon.

Howling, braying and censoring is no way to do through life son.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

[QUOTE=oeb11;1062341183]Agreed - and well written NGIT.

Still i support peaceful protest - and that was not when they trespassed into the Capitol.

[QUOTE]

that goes without saying

but to spell out my point:

what incited the non peaceful protest however was 5 years of dimocrat lying and America hating and rioting and attacks and name calling against americans by the dimocrats

and even with all that, only a few hundred took the dimocrat bait

Agreed-NGIT!!!!!

The question being asked now is, will John Roberts decline to preside over the impeachment trial? Seems as if the Chief Justice wants nothing to do with prosecuting an EX President since the Constitution says that the Chief Justice will preside in the trial of "The" President and Donald Trump is not "The" President. Add to that the fact that Impeachment is for the removal from office of a President. That already happened. So while many people including many Constitutional scholars say it is constitutional to put an EX President who is now a civilian on trial, many others say that's ridiculous.


If John Roberts declines to preside because he believes he is being asked to do something un-Constitutional, where does it go from there? Reason would suggest that the entire SC must decide before a trial can commence but do we always get sufficient reason from the SC? Nope, not always.


This should be interesting.

He will need to decide I suppose.

"Impeachment is for the removal from office of a president" ..... so John Roberts really has only one course of action here, shut this attempt down .....

its not so much that the people who stormed the capitol were trump supporters

if you scratched them, you'd likely find just beneath the surface they were anti-dimocrat party people more than trump supporters

they were trump supporters in the sense they sure weren't going to support America haters

so whoever wrote the article could have called them people against the dimocrat party, which would have had more precision, than just calling them trump supporters Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

There were a few BLM and Antifa members in the crowd that went into the Capitol Building. They have footage and their names but you don't see the MSM bringing them up.

The question being asked now is, will John Roberts decline to preside over the impeachment trial? Seems as if the Chief Justice wants nothing to do with prosecuting an EX President since the Constitution says that the Chief Justice will preside in the trial of "The" President and Donald Trump is not "The" President. Add to that the fact that Impeachment is for the removal from office of a President. That already happened. So while many people including many Constitutional scholars say it is constitutional to put an EX President who is now a civilian on trial, many others say that's ridiculous.


If John Roberts declines to preside because he believes he is being asked to do something un-Constitutional, where does it go from there? Reason would suggest that the entire SC must decide before a trial can commence but do we always get sufficient reason from the SC? Nope, not always.


This should be interesting. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Agreed. But I'm not depending on Justice Roberts to "come to the rescue." The amount of evidence supporting the Dims impeachment charge is incredibly light.

The Republicans are in a spot. Convict Trump and they're gone. Don't convict Trump and they'll have money issues.

There were a few BLM and Antifa members in the crowd that went into the Capitol Building. They have footage and their names but you don't see the MSM bringing them up. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Feel free to post the footage and names. I'd love to see them!

Don’t wait on it. He’s repeating what he heard on OANN or NewsMax. I would say he read it on Parler but . . . Russia is hosting that now.

The Blame Antifa and BLM is kinda a dead horse considering that every photo of the insurrectionists has a Trump Flag in it.

The question being asked now is, will John Roberts decline to preside over the impeachment trial? Seems as if the Chief Justice wants nothing to do with prosecuting an EX President since the Constitution says that the Chief Justice will preside in the trial of "The" President and Donald Trump is not "The" President. Add to that the fact that Impeachment is for the removal from office of a President. That already happened. So while many people including many Constitutional scholars say it is constitutional to put an EX President who is now a civilian on trial, many others say that's ridiculous.


If John Roberts declines to preside because he believes he is being asked to do something un-Constitutional, where does it go from there? Reason would suggest that the entire SC must decide before a trial can commence but do we always get sufficient reason from the SC? Nope, not always.


This should be interesting. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

no one raised this question that I've seen.

if john roberts takes part in the impeachment, he'd be in conflict of interest. I do expect a lawsuit against the constitutionality of Trump's conviction by congress. so this would be very awkward for Roberts if he took part in both proceedings.

from what we're hearing he will not take part, prolly a good thing.

oh btw, VP Kamala Harris would preside over the trial when John roberts refuse to take part.

is she herself a big conflict of interest???

This is because they know he really won and they don't want him to be president