"Disqualify R House Members by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment from serving in

[dutch508]

Budi (11,907 posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216171928

MARC ELIAS: "Disqualify R House Members by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment from serving in Congress"
@marceelias
"My prediction for 2022: Before the midterm election, we will have a serious discussion about whether individual Republican House Members are disqualified by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment from serving in Congress.

We may even see litigation."





***************




Good luck on your mission Mr Elias.
You found "the way", now to get 2/3 to do the just thing for their country & our Govt.
It's not an impossible task but it is an honorable one.
Thank you

Star Member Nevilledog (30,649 posts)

2. The 2/3rds pertains to LIFTING a ban pursuant to this statute.

Takes a simple majority to remove them.

Fiendish Thingy (8,368 posts)

32. This is not about expulsion, it's about barring the member from holding future office

If they are barred under this section of the constitution, they can’t be re-elected, or hold future federal elected positions.

Star Member ancianita (24,976 posts)

10. What, exactly is the ban being lifted? And from what statute, since the 14th is not a statute.

Last edited Wed Dec 22, 2021, 12:10 AM - Edit history (1)

Marc Elias is smart, but there's no clear path forward for "disqualifying" congressional members, given the impossibility of enforcing the words of the 14th.

Star Member Nevilledog (30,649 posts)

17. Here's some more info on this provision.

The 14th Amendment’s Disqualification Provision and the Events of Jan. 6

https://www.lawfareblog.com/14th-amendments-disqualification-provision-and-events-jan-6


I disagree with you that there's no way to use this....if members of Congress are charged and convicted for their involvement in the insurrection they would no longer be eligible to hold office. I think Marc is hinting at members being charged.

Zeitghost (812 posts)

44. Nobody is being charged with insurrection

n/t

Star Member Nevilledog (30,649 posts)

48. It says insurrection or rebellion.

Doesn't say you have to be charged or convicted of the specific crime of insurrection.


The gray area, as I see it, would be if a member is convicted of ANY crime directly related to the insurrection, if that would be sufficient to render them ineligible to hold office.


I highly recommend taking a look at the article

Zeitghost (812 posts)

61. That's a very loose interpretation

Considering nobody has been charged with those crimes related to 1/6. This was written with Confederates in mind, as in whole scale Civil War. No court is going to take that position on such a serious matter, especially when there are other ways to remove a member for misconduct.

Fiendish Thingy (8,368 posts)

33. That's why he anticipates litigation- it's uncharted territory. Nt

Star Member ancianita (24,976 posts)

78. Still. Who would represent against the proven aiders and abettors of insurrection?

If the Jan 6 committee turns over phone call records and other documented evidence on these congress people --

Marjorie Taylor Greene GA
Lauren Boebert CO
Paul Gosar AZ

Mo Brooks AL
Andy Biggs AZ
Madison Cawthorn NC

Matt Gaetz FL
Jim Jordan OH
Louie Gohmert TX

Scott Perry PA
Jody Hice GA
James Lankford OK

Steve Daines MT
John Kennedy LA
Marsha Blackburn TN


Mike Braun IN
Cynthia Lummis WY
Roger Marshall KS
Bill Hagerty TN
Tommy Tuberville AL


Josh Hawley MO
Lindsey Graham SC
Ron Johnson WI
Ted Cruz TX

-- on days before and after the attack, would the Jan 6's own counsel -- Timothy J. Heaphy, Hope Goins and Candyce Phoenix -- send their recommendation for DOJ's charging them and then, what, get the DOJ to interpret them as "disabled" constitutionally? Or would the DOJ represent the United States and charge them for aiding and abetting an insurrection and having them arrested, THEN removed automatically? It sounds logical but I feel like the Elias argument doesn't really help.

RayStar (349 posts)

6. Hope

Please let this litigation happen.

Star Member ancianita (24,976 posts)

16. The meaning of this amendment is clear by what it says more than any "desired" 'implication.


Elias is dreaming.

Why would SCOTUS rule on how to compose or penalize anyone in Congress. That is Congress' job alone, and another branch can't tell it what to do.

Elias' chances are slim to none.

Star Member NYC Liberal (19,518 posts)

25. They would need to have been found guilty in a court of law before they can be disqualified.

Due process is still a thing. A simple majority of Congress cannot simply declare someone guilty of insurrection and bar them from holding office.

Star Member ecstatic (29,338 posts)

27. All of this should have been done immediately after the insurrection

Now the traitors feel entitled to keep their seats.

That said, better late than never. They still need to go--but why do we take so long to act in serious emergencies? Thank God these overly cautious/timid types weren't in power after the Civil War ended. The confederate traitors would not have been kicked out of Congress and things would have played out way differently, although it looks like we're on track to meet the same fate regardless. SMH

FBaggins (23,654 posts)

55. Yeah! We could get the VP to just declare it!

We’ll need to get thousands of people there to the Capitol (maybe with a guillotine?) to make clear that “were the people” insist on the proper outcome.

Please tell me the tag isn’t necessary?

 

Star Member IronLionZion (35,859 posts)

28. My favorite amendment and the GOP's most hated

It's why they always claim Obama, Harris, (and me) were not actually born in the US by imaginary rules of white-only citizenship.

Racists randomly decided that section 1 just doesn't exist. The whole amendment didn't exist until after the Civil War anyway so they pretend it doesn't count.

Section 3 is of course directly targeting elected officials who supported those fine people who have statues all over the south since "we can't erase history". Everyone gets a trophy.

Now is a great time for Pelosi to use Section 5 too: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Star Member Gaugamela (1,461 posts)

29. And here's the 1st section of the 14th Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Everyone is guaranteed due process. All these Republican congress persons would have to be convicted of insurrection in a court of law in order to disqualify them from holding office.

Amishman (4,166 posts)

56. Seems like a good way of losing more ground with public opinion

Let's face it, the general public doesn't give a shit about 1/6 anymore. The Pubs are leading in generic ballot polls for crying out loud.

If we start barring republicans from office (regardless of reasons), the media coverage will be slanted hard against us and be damaging.

While actions like this might be justified, actually doing it knowing the collateral damage it would cause, is very short sighted.

We're in bad shape for next year, and it is absolutely critical that we turn things around. Every action needs to be carefully weighed against how it will play our in the court of public opinion.

Alexander Of Assyria (914 posts)

67. The public gives a great deal of shit to an attack on democracy and the Republic by

a past twice impeached pResident. My opinion therefore is contrary.

Opinion polls are transitory…wait until the indictments drop and the corporate media can’t hide it all.

It’s not barring from office, it’s expulsion while in office, as outlined in the constitution.

The court of public opinion will come around when the top insurrectionists are in the court dock.

Star Member NCjack (8,977 posts)

72. DEMs should try to use it to expel the Members who participated in

1/6 Insurrection. If the Court favors the Republicans now on this, we need to know that before they grab the House in 2022.

 

[DUmpDiver]

Typical DUmmie circle jerk.

[freedumb2003b]

Budi (11,907 posts)

MARC ELIAS: "Disqualify R House Members by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment from serving in Congress"
@marceelias
"My prediction for 2022: Before the midterm election, we will have a serious discussion about whether individual Republican House Members are disqualified by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment from serving in Congress.

We may even see litigation."

I 100% predict this prediction will not come true.

[Texacon]

Their desperation is showing. They know they can’t win the mid terms so they’re reaching, grasping, for anything and it’s hilarious.

KC

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Their desperation is showing. They know they can’t win the mid terms so they’re reaching, grasping, for anything and it’s hilarious.

KC

I think they want a pretext to do something radical.

[Texacon]

I think they want a pretext to do something radical.

That would end badly for them. I know they’re not the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree, but Lord, I hope they realize just how bad that would be for them.

Oh wait, I forgot they have Duncanpup, the alcoholic paratrooper, if he’s to be believed. He can lead their troops.

KC

[SVPete]

Let's apply it to the Dems in Schifftyroo's Ukraine Shamvestigation Kangaroo Kommittee who tried to get a sitting President impeached on an utterly false accusation.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

That would end badly for them. I know they’re not the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree, but Lord, I hope they realize just how bad that would be for them.

Oh wait, I forgot they have Duncanpup, the alcoholic paratrooper, if he’s to be believed. He can lead their troops.

KC

They spent all of the Bush years saying the troops are mind numbed robots.

Now they think those robots are their robots.

[67 Rover]

Well it appears they would like to see what a real insurrection looks like if they do decide to carry through with that nonsense.

I am not opposed. 

[Delmar]

Response to Budi (Original post)Wed Dec 22, 2021, 08:28 AM
Star Member onenote (36,455 posts)
57. One thing that Elias seems to have forgotten

As far as I know, not a single person who actually stormed the Capital has been charged with "insurrection." I cannot see the courts upholding any attempt to disqualify a member of Congress for insurrection when those who most actively engaged in the events of January 6 have not been charged with insurrection.

They're calling it an insurrection so it must be an insurrection, just like their argument that antifa are against fascism because it's right there in the name.  What a bunch of stupid children.

[CollectivismMustDie]

I think they want a pretext to do something radical.

They should be careful, lest we on the other side start looking at other oaths which they on the other side have broken.