Many of Trump’s proposals for his second term are surprisingly extreme, draconian, and weird, even for him. Here’s a running list of his most unhinged plans.

  • voracitude@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Trump is already disqualified from holding any office, let alone that of the President, under section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4591133

    Page 17:

    V. The persons who framed Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment regarded the President of the United States as an officer of the United States

    The President of the United States was among the officials who took the oath to the Constitution that under Section Three triggered disqualification for participating in an insurrection. As noted in the previous section, the persons responsible for the Fourteenth Amendment sought to bar from present and future office all persons who betrayed their constitutional oath. “All of us understanding the meaning of the third section,” Senator John Sherman of Ohio stated, “those men who have once taken an oath of office to support the Constitution of the United States and have Fourteenth Amendment distinguished between the presidential oath mandated by Article II and violated that oath in spirit by taking up arms against the Government of the United States are to be deprived for a time at least of holding office.” No member of the Congress that drafted the the oath of office for other federal and state officers mandated by Article VI. Both were oaths to support the Constitution. Senator Garrett Davis of Kentucky saw no legal difference between the constitutional requirement that “all officers, both Federal and State, should take an oath to support” the Constitution and the constitutional requirement that the president “take an oath, to the best of his ability to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.” Senator James Doolittle of Wisconsin declared that Congress need not pass laws requiring presidents to swear to support the Constitution because that “oath is specified in the constitution.”

    In fact, the exact question of whether the disqualification from public office covered the Presidency came up at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was being drafted: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/lsb/lsb10569

    Specifically:

    One scholar notes that the drafting history of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment suggests that the office of the President is covered:

    During the debate on Section Three, one Senator asked why ex-Confederates “may be elected President or Vice President of the United States, and why did you all omit to exclude them? I do not understand them to be excluded from the privilege of holding the two highest offices in the gift of the nation.” Another Senator replied that the lack of specific language on the Presidency and Vice- Presidency was irrelevant: “Let me call the Senator’s attention to the words ‘or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States.’”

    I’ll highlight that last bit again:

    Another Senator replied that the lack of specific language on the Presidency and Vice- Presidency was irrelevant: “Let me call the Senator’s attention to the words ‘or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States.’”

    That is from this paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3748639

    Some people seem to have a lot of trouble with figuring out what “or” means, in a list of things.

      • voracitude@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yes, actually, that’s exactly what it means. He broke his oath of office. He is not fit to hold any public office including that of the President, and he is barred from holding office by the Constitution of the United States. Period dot, and of story.

          • voracitude@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Incorrect. The judge in Colorado ruled he broke his oath of office and engaged in an insurrection, which is what makes the ruling so coo-coo bananapants.

        • dvoraqs@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          There are people in powerful positions who may try to interpret this as favorably to Trump as possible to let him off the hook for it, holding as much integrity for themselves as they can while still achieving the goal. Are you sure it will hold up? I’m not, unfortunately.

          • spaceghoti@lemmy.oneOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not with the conservative shills on this Supreme Court, no. Not when it really counts. This is the product of several generations of conservative activism to stack the courts with partisan judges for conservative causes.

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I can’t really find fault with the ruling. The amendment specifically calls out very important positions like senators and representatives, and even electors for POTUS…but they just plumb forgot the even more important position of POTUS? It’s really hard to believe.

        I don’t know why they would exclude the POTUS, and few want trump off the ballot more than me, but the argument that the POTUS is not included is very reasonable.

        • Dkarma@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The text literally says “any office”. Not sure what you’re talking about here.

          • EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            So why do you think they left POTUS out of the list when they listed out other important positions? Why not just say “any office” is that’s all inclusive?

            • voracitude@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Read the excerpt, then go read the rest of the paper at the link. The context of why is in the other sections, before and after 5 which I quoted above.

              • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I read the excerpt, and it makes no mention of why they explicitly call out senators but not the post, and vaguely referencing a 55 page paper just leads me to believe you have no explanation.

                If this is not the case, could you put the argument in your own words?

      • voracitude@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s fine if you feel that way personally, but it doesn’t matter; that’s not part of the requirements for triggering Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Read the text.

          • voracitude@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I agree that “we all know he did it” is a terrible reason to take procedural action of any kind, but again: your personal feelings don’t change the fact that the text doesn’t lay out any way to actually execute Section 3, it only states the requirements for triggering it. Go ahead and quote those requirements, verbatim and in full. I’ll wait; you will find they don’t say anything about being convicted of anything.

            I’m not saying that it wouldn’t set a dangerous precedent, only that the reasons given for throwing out these cases are so flawed they’re not even specious, they’re just plain wrong.

              • voracitude@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Maybe I’m not articulating MY point well enough. If someone breaks their oath of office (and by the way that has indeed now been found to be a fact in a Court of Law), they cannot be trusted to keep their oath of office. This is not my opinion, this is written into the Constitution of our country.

                The ruling in Court is necessary, of course, for the reasons you have given. But Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require it. The text of the Amendment says nothing about convictions. That is what I am saying. If you think it does, show me the text. If you can’t quote me the text that says a conviction is required, then you still haven’t understood my point.

                Edit: bolded the part where I acknowledge what you are saying is correct, because that is important text you should pay attention to.