Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Donald Trump is NOT eligible to run for President. Period. [View all]LetMyPeopleVote
(146,930 posts)16. Jamie Raskin Says Trump Is Disqualified From Ever Holding Office Again
Even if TFG was on the ballot, TFG would still be disqualified from serving as POTUS
Link to tweet
https://bipartisanreport.com/2023/12/31/jamie-raskin-says-trump-is-disqualified-from-ever-holding-office-again/
In a new interview with CNN, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) currently the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee proclaimed former President Donald Trump to be clearly disqualified from holding public office in the future.
Raskin based his remarks on the now often cited provisions of the national Constitutions 14th Amendment that block individuals who reneged on an oath of office via engaging in insurrection from later returning to various positions of governmental power. The connection made to Trump is the violence of January 6, 2021, which figures from Colorado Judge Sarah Wallace to Special Counsel Jack Smiths prosecution team going after Trump at the federal Justice Department have held to be essentially the doing of the former president. Hes tentatively on track to be blocked from ballots in two states already, though the Colorado ruling establishing as much was put on hold for now.
This becomes a test for the originalists and the textualists on the Supreme Court, Raskin said, discussing the expected arrival of disputes over Trump appearing on the ballot at the Supreme Court. And I think all of the Justices from Left to Right call themselves textualists and originalists. The language of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is very clear. It says if youve sworn an oath to support the Constitution and then violated the oath by engaging in insurrection or rebellion, you can never hold public office again. Raskin then argued that the historical record of the formulation of the 14th Amendment establishes a clear intent outlined by that language, since the original proposal was narrowed.
Trump has disqualified himself, Raskin summarized.
Raskin based his remarks on the now often cited provisions of the national Constitutions 14th Amendment that block individuals who reneged on an oath of office via engaging in insurrection from later returning to various positions of governmental power. The connection made to Trump is the violence of January 6, 2021, which figures from Colorado Judge Sarah Wallace to Special Counsel Jack Smiths prosecution team going after Trump at the federal Justice Department have held to be essentially the doing of the former president. Hes tentatively on track to be blocked from ballots in two states already, though the Colorado ruling establishing as much was put on hold for now.
This becomes a test for the originalists and the textualists on the Supreme Court, Raskin said, discussing the expected arrival of disputes over Trump appearing on the ballot at the Supreme Court. And I think all of the Justices from Left to Right call themselves textualists and originalists. The language of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is very clear. It says if youve sworn an oath to support the Constitution and then violated the oath by engaging in insurrection or rebellion, you can never hold public office again. Raskin then argued that the historical record of the formulation of the 14th Amendment establishes a clear intent outlined by that language, since the original proposal was narrowed.
Trump has disqualified himself, Raskin summarized.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
61 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Agree. He disqualified himself by trying to rip off a free and fair election.
onecaliberal
Dec 2023
#2
I know SCOTUS is going to dismiss this, because they suck, but it is clear drumpf is disqualified
Takket
Dec 2023
#10
The framers addressed that as I understand it (?) "Officers" does not exclude POTUS or VP...
CousinIT
Dec 2023
#22
Here's the problem. There's no legal finding of participating in an insurrection.
WarGamer
Dec 2023
#21
No legal finding or conviction. But the entire nation saw it, heard him incite it.
CousinIT
Dec 2023
#24
So, if Trump's insurrection had succeeded, we would have needed his DOJ to prosecute him...
W_HAMILTON
Jan 2024
#56
We know he did it, but think one has to be adjudicated an insurrectionist, unless
Silent Type
Dec 2023
#31
When the Colorado judge orders a sentence hearing for insurrection, we have him.
Silent Type
Dec 2023
#43