The Devil Is In The Details!

Do you think the Supreme Court is correct that a president should not face criminal charges for anything they do as part of their official duties?

If so, you know nothing about how Donald Trump dishonors his oath of office every day!

     The Devil Is In The Details

It's All About The Insecurity Equipment

Does Trump really believe that accepting the gift of a lavish 747 jet is good for the country or is it just good for Trump's ego?

The Qatari plane was built to haul a king around in ostentatious luxury.  The replacement Air Force One planes currently in production are being designed to haul a president around comfortably with extreme security measures to keep the  president safe and elaborate communications equipment that would allow him to perform presidential duties from anywhere in the world.  Granted the  replacement planes are over budget and delayed, but that just proves that refitting the Qatari plane will not be easy, cheap or fast.

For example, Air Force One has the ability to be refueled in flight by military tankers.  I doubt that the Qatari plane has this capability.

The Qatari 747 does have some features not found on the current and replacement Air Force One planes: insecurity equipment. 

This is all about Trump's ego.  That says a lot since Trump has the use of Air Force One just to shuffle him between his golf outings.

So let's suppose he gets permission and money to modify the free Qatari bribe plane (there is no such thing as a free lunch or a free luxury jet).  It will take at least a couple of years for the upgrade to be completed.  So we put millions of dollars into the plane and he uses it as Air Force One for a year or a year and a half.  Trump says the plane will then go to his library. Not a chance.  He'll fly in it (probably at tax payer expense) until he drops.

Most of the security equipment that had to be added to the plane will have to removed so it can't fall into an adversaries hands.  Who pays for that?

Even worse, what if it is not complete when his term expires?  Do tax payers have to pay to finish the project so he can fly it around?

There are actually two Air Force One planes.  Their use is rotated so there is always a backup ready when needed.  Pity the poor fool who has to tell Trump he has to use the old dumpy Air Force One for a flight.  The old Air Force Ones will probably be reserved for Melania or the kids.  

Or maybe Don Jr. will want to continue to use the Qatari plane when he is elected in 2028.

I've go to stop.  This is all making me nauseous.

 

 

 

Maybe Trump Isn't Bound By The Constitution

On Meet The Press yesterday, Kristen Welker asked Trump if, as president, he needed to uphold the Constitution.  He said he "didn't know" and he would have to ask his lawyers.  I immediately thought, what an idiot.

After I thought about it for a minute I realized he may have a point.  Maybe he can't be held to his oath to uphold the Constitution.

On inauguration day he took the presidential oath of office which includes ""I Donald John Trump do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States...".

There you go.  He has a point.  He said he would "to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution...".   He has no ability to be president.  He is a liar, a con, a grifter, an extortionist.  Add your favorite pejorative.  Those are his abilities.  He has no ability or competency to be president.  He doesn't begin to understand the duties, requirements and responsibilities of a real president.  He couldn't even play one on television.

Trump thinks of himself as the leader for the average person and people believed him.  Trump has no empathy.  In fact, he is callously cruel. He recently claimed kids have too many dolls so it is no big deal if the new Trump economy may mean they can't buy so many more or they might cost more.  This from the man who has golden toilets.

So he can't be blamed for not performing as a president because he really doesn't understand what a president is supposed to do.

We can blame the MAGAs who should have been smarter than Trump and knew that they shouldn't have voted for him.  He constantly made it clear that he had no presidential abilities. What we need now is for those people to realize how incompetent he is and do what Trump often says,  help us "get him the hell out of here!" 

Trump's Conflicting Easter Messages

Donald Trump issued a traditional Easter Message today.  Please read it if you like, but it is basically the usual type of message we would expect from a president for Easter.  

Below is another Easter Message from him on Truth Social.  This is from an Irish Star article (this link also contains the traditional Easter Message).

"Happy Easter to all, including the Radical Left Lunatics who are fighting and scheming so hard to bring Murderers, Drug Lords, Dangerous Prisoners, the Mentally Insane, and well known MS-13 Gang Members and Wife Beaters, back into our Country."

"Happy Easter also to the WEAK and INEFFECTIVE Judges and Law Enforcement Officials who are allowing this sinister attack on our Nation to continue, an attack so violent that it will never be forgotten!"  

"Sleepy Joe Biden purposefully allowed Millions of CRIMINALS to enter our Country, totally unvetted and unchecked, through an Open Borders Policy that will go down in history as the single most calamitous act ever perpetrated upon America.   He was, by far, our WORST and most Incompetent President, a man who had absolutely no idea what he was doing."

"But to him, and to the person that ran and manipulated the Auto Pen (perhaps our REAL President!), and to all of the people who CHEATED in the 2020 Presidential Election in order to get this highly destructive Moron Elected, I wish you, with great love, sincerity, and affection, a very Happy Easter!!!" 

Which one do you think Trump wrote?

President Thinks Midshipmen At Naval Academy Are Incompetent

In the newspaper this morning I read an article by the AP about 381 books being removed from the library at the Naval Academy.

The article said Navy officials used a key word search and identified about 900 books that looked to be problematic and then pared that number down to 381 which were removed from the library.

According to Cmdr. Tim Hawkins, Navy spokesman, "Nearly 400 books were removed from the Nimitz Library to comply with directives outlined in Executive Orders issued by the President."

So the President believes that future leaders of our military and country are not competent enough to make their own decisions about what they should read.   I think I know who is not competent and it is not the Midshipmen.  

 

Below is a definition of DEI.  Given that U.S. military members come from all over our diverse country and often have to work shoulder to shoulder with allies from around the world, does DEI really sound like such radical ideas we need to hide them from people?

Diversity includes all the ways in which people differ, encompassing the different characteristics that make one individual or group different from another.

Equity is the fair treatment, access, opportunity, and advancement for all people, while at the same time striving to identify and eliminate barriers that have prevented the full participation of some groups.

Inclusion is the act of creating environments in which any individual or group can be and feel welcomed, respected, supported, and valued to fully participate.

"Hands Off" Rally

My wife and I joined a "Hands Off" rally yesterday.  It was satisfying and enjoyable.  We took some quickly made signs (unfortunately not very water proof) and joined about 1,300 people on the shoulder of a very busy four lane street.  I think the crowd stretched more than a quarter mile.

It was cold and rainy,  but that didn't dampen the spirits of the many people there.  A lot of cars drove by.  Many honked their horns, waved and gave us thumbs up as they went by.  We waved back.  I saw some one finger salutes.  I also smiled and waved at these people.  That is what free speech is about.

People walked behind the crowd  and took pictures of us and our signs.  I again smiled and waved.  

Some days the torrent of unconstitutional, illegal, incompetent, immoral and corrupt actions we see coming from the Trump administration and Republican politicians can be very depressing.  It felt good to be doing something in public.  To stand up and say I think what you are doing is wrong.

What I was amazed by was the number of cars that had a person or two with their windows down and their phones up videoing the whole line of protesters.  I've never had so many people want a picture of me.

Schumer Was Correct

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is being severely criticized by fellow Democrats for his YES vote on the Republican CR funding bill and letting it become law. Democrats wanted Schumer to vote NO which would have caused the government to shut down. Most Democrats thought a NO vote would be one of their few chances to stop or at least slow Trump's radical agenda.

Schumer thought that shutting the government down would only give Republicans more power to implement their plans.

I agree with Schumer.

Limited government has been a guiding principle of Republicans for decades. Ronald Reagan said the government was the problem, not the solution. Grover Norquist, a well known Republican advisor from the 1980s, wanted to cut the government so deeply that he could “drown it in a bathtub”. Trump shut the government down for about a month during his first term. Republicans like government shut downs.

I haven't figured out what Trump's overall plan is for the country (assuming he has one), but it obviously includes destroying the government, the economy, Democrats, the rule of law, the free press, the Courts and probably the Constitution. A long government shutdown that he could blame on Democrats helps him meet his (and Putin's) plans.

If Trump and Musk really wanted to down size the government and make it more efficient, they wouldn't be firing thousands of employees by in-discriminant means or decimating government departments and agencies.

We need to fight Trump every way we can. Helping him shut down the government does not help the country at all. Once the government was down, how would Democrats every get it going again without Republican help? Do you really think Republicans would make any adjustments or concessions to their bill to get Democratic votes to restart the government? Republicans did not ask for or allow any suggestions from Democrats when writing the CR funding legislation. Why would they do anything during a shutdown they were happy to have? 

It would take Democrat's making concessions and promising enough YES votes before Republicans would bring the CR bill up for another vote. So instead of stopping the Republican's CR bill Democrats would just put the country through the turmoil of a possibly long shutdown and show the country how truly politically weak they are.

Does Trump Cower At Threat Of WW III?

Like many people I wonder what hold Putin has on Trump. There are many possible explanations and Trump's obvious mental decline may make any rational explanation impossible.

But in Trump's meltdown while talking to Ukraine's President Zelensky in the Oval Office, Trump twice warned Zelensky that by not accepting his plan to end the war Zelensky threatened to unleash World War III.  Trump seemed to be sincere in his assertion.

I wonder if Putin warned Trump he would start WW III if Trump didn't convince Zelensky to just give up. 

For all his bluster, I can easily believe Trump could not stand up to such a threat.  Trump is a bully and is always eager to threaten opponents when he thinks he has an advantage.  When it is the other way around he is a coward.

 

Two Hundred Year Old Social Security Recipients?

During President Trump's recent address to the nation Republican's were appalled by his claims of very old people in the Social Security System.  He implied that they were receiving benefits, but provided no proof.  Of course, he never provides proof for his outlandish statements.

What really surprised me was that Republicans seemed stunned to hear of very old people being in the system.  Didn't the President's physician during his first term, Dr. Ronny Johnson, claim President Trump was so healthy he could live to be 200? So what's the big deal?  True to his Republican roots Dr. Johnson provided no proof.

Letter To Republican Senators

The conduct of the President in his first month is appalling. I know he promised us shock and awe and we have gotten that. What I didn't expect was incompetence, outrageous lies, illegal actions, unconstitutional actions, scorn for the rule of law and corruption. I could cite many specific actions, but if you can honestly say you don't know what I'm talking about than this letter really doesn't matter.

I expect a new administration to make changes that reflect their priorities. There are always things that the President wants to add or change, but I would expect these to reflect careful thought and be checked for legality and constitutionality. Instead we have rash, harsh, slap-dash actions with no clear plans. Many of these actions seem to be aimed at pure retribution rather than making our government more cost effective or better for our country and citizens.

I understand the President believes he knows more about everything than anyone else. That is clearly revealed by his many appointments that represent his desire for absolute sycophancy from all subordinates rather then expertise in the nominees' areas of responsibility. We both know he does not know everything.

What I didn't expect was the complete lack by Republican elected officials to honor their oaths of office and constitutional responsibilities. You and your colleagues are charged by the Constitution to be an equal and independent branch of the government. You are expected to act as a constraint on a President who refuses to act like anything close to what we have come to believe is presidential behavior. What I see are politicians who are more concerned about their personal and partisan political power than they are for their country or its citizens.

Please perform your constitutional duty and help President Trump understand that many of his actions are not helpful or condoned by most voters. And the number of voters who would like to see him constrained is growing quickly. If you want to continue to be an elected politician you should start listening to voters.

If you read nothing else in this letter, know that the President needs to stop acting like a know-it-all king and Elon Musk needs to go back to running his companies.

Republicans, Only You Can Save Us

 I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said something like, In a democracy you get the government you
deserve. I didn't vote for Donald Trump and I certainly don't think I deserve Trump's version of government. I believe in the Constitution, the Rule of Law, separation of powers, democracy, integrity, character, facts and truth. Trump is proving that he does not.

If you want to fight waste and fraud, go for it, but do it in ways that don't harm innocent people or valuable institutions. When you find out you were wrong it can be very difficult to repair the damage.

I've been told many times that we need a business leader in the White House. Really? When a business leader creates a disaster, they are often fired or they declare bankruptcy and leave their problems for someone else.  Before President Trump brings moral, institutional and fiscal bankruptcy on us, we need to fire him. 

Democrats can't do this by themselves. We need the help of Republicans (voters and politicians) who realize that Trump is not working in the best interests of citizens or our country. Republicans need to convince him that the chaos we are seeing is not what they voted for. If he doesn't change, they need to help to impeach and remove him from office. 

Republican's please don't wait too long. His recent executive order giving himself complete control over legally established independent departments and agencies shows he really wants to be a dictator forever.

MAGA Voters Need A Reality Check

When Democratic voters became aware of the effects of aging on President Biden, they encouraged him to reconsider his candidacy.  His accomplishments in office and his unselfish act of withdrawing from the campaign will cement his legacy as a great president.

For anyone outside the MAGA bubble, the decline of Donald Trump's mental competency and his failing grip on reality is obvious.  Trump's current poll numbers show that those inside the bubble either never see any of his outrageous comments or they really do not understand or care about the damage he proposes to inflict on the country or his political opponents.  

One of the responsibilities of being a citizen is that you be an informed voter.  That means you should search for information outside of media and information sources that tailor their product to a specific population to gain economic benefits or shape opinions.

Facts about his outrageous behavior surrounding January 6, 2020 are easy to find.  Examples of flagrant and continuous lying are everywhere.  If you can't find any, just wait.  He happily generates new ones everyday.

MAGA voters, you need a reality check and as a responsible voter it is on you to make that happen.

After the fact apologies that you didn't know or didn't believe he would be that bad will not cut it.

God's Message to Donald Trump

J.D. Vance said he thought the failed assassination attempt on Donald Trump demonstrated that God intervened to save Mr. Trump.  Mr. Vance may know more about how God communicates than I do, but I wonder if the near miss was actually a warning from God to Mr. Trump. And maybe it wasn't just about politics and maybe not just about his future here on earth.

Supreme Court Must Decide: Is Trump An Insurrectionist?

I've heard a lot of prognostications that the Supreme Court will find some procedural justification to ignore the 14th Amendment and keep Trump on the ballot. That probably means they will ignore whether or not Trump is an insurrectionist.

If they do find some way to keep Trump on the ballot, maybe we can at least put to rest the farce that conservative justices are textualists and believe in originalism.

If they allow him on the ballot for some weak procedural issue, is it to much to ask them as individuals to state whether are not he is an insurrectionist as defined by the 14th Amendment?

The 14th Amendment does not require a jury trial or proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  If they leave Trump on the ballot, every voter will have to decide whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States or gave aid or comfort to someone who did.  

As justices of the United States Supreme Court they have sworn to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  Their legal training, experience and oath to the Constitution should demand that they state clearly whether or not they believe that by the text of the 14th Amendment Trump is an insurrectionist or gave aid or comfort to an insurrectionist.

This issue it before the court and they swore an oath to defend the Constitution.  If they can't say if he is or is not an insurrectionist, what good are they?

Don't Give In To Threats Of Political Violence

I've been seeing comments that using the 14th Amendments to keep Trump off the ballot is unconstitutional and will lead to violence.

As everyone should know, the 14th Amendment is part of the United States Constitution.  So using the 14th Amendment is literally constitutional!

As for violence, Trump lied about the 2020 election being stolen from him and then attempted to stop the transfer of power and in doing so incited violence.

So if he is kept off the ballot we can expect violence.

If he loses the 2024 election we can expect claims the election was stolen again and violence.

If he wins the 2024 election he will implement the plans he has been telling about and we can expect violence.  Violence from Trump's retribution and, possibly, violence from people who refuse to let him: 

 

* Destroy the non-partisan FBI

* Destroy the independent DOJ

* Destroy the rule of law

* Destroy our non-partisan and independent judiciary (he will ignore the courts)

* Use the military for domestic control

* Put his political opponents in jail

* Shut down media that criticize him.

Basically the same goals he had for his first administration, but now with better execution and still no Republican party that will rein him in.

Threats of violence should not be allowed to further any domestic political goals. So I vote to keep him off the ballot and use our intact FBI, DOJ and independent judiciary to handle any domestic violence he incites.

Why Is Trump Stalling Trials?

I hear a lot of politicians and pundits espouse that voters, not courts, should decide if Donald Trump should be president again.  As described in previous blogs, the 14th Amendment in clear text says he should not be allowed to be re-elected.  But courts are the place where Constitutional issues are resolved or at least we hope they would be resolved.

But if politicians and pundits believe so strongly that voters should decide Trump's fitness, why are they not calling for Trump to stop the judicial stalling?  If voters should decide the election, don't they have a right to know if Trump is guilty of any of the dozens of crimes he has been indicted for?  And know before the nomination and election?  If Trump is innocent it would be in his interest to get these trials over with.

If Trump is as innocent as he keeps telling us, he should fighting to get before a jury as soon as possible and be exonerated.

Silly me, I know why he is stalling.  He thinks the DOJ, the judicial system, jurors, the majority of voters, bankers, bus drivers, little old men, election workers, etc. are all against him.  The whole system, actually the whole world is against him and he can't possibly get a fair trial.

Truth is, he knows he is guilty as hell and will do anything to escape punishment for his crimes.

14th Amendment Was Written For Trump

After carefully reading the 14^th Amendment, Section 3, I was struck by how it seems to be perfectly written to fit the situation we currently find ourselves in.

I'm obviously not a Constitutional or legal scholar, but as I hear the comments from people who are experts I'm taken by how we are facing issues similar to those that legislators faced after the Civil War when the 14^th Amendment was written and adopted.

The South was defeated and brought back into the Union, but there were many southerners who would never concede they were wrong or they actually lost (sound familiar?). What was to stop these people from picking up where they left off before the war started and again elect people to state and federal offices to continue to try to break or harm the Union?  Congress believed laws were needed to prevent this. I've heard several ideas were floated and rejected before the 14^th Amendment was adopted (with some later changes). I'll admit the amendment language seems somewhat out of step with other parts of the Constitution, but I think it was intentional.

Let me conjecture why I think the amendment was written as it was and so clearly matches our current needs. The 14th Amendment applies to certain federal and state office holders (civil and military).  For this discussion I'm focusing primarily on the presidency.

The amendment says people are disqualified from holding office again "if previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States,... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.".

These are people who have shown they can't be trusted.   They broke their oath.

The amendment does not require that an insurrectionist be convicted of a crime. I'm guessing that this may have been for several reasons.  The number of people who could have been taken to court for engaging in an insurrection or rebellion after the civil war would have been in the millions.  How could you find enough unbiased jurors in the south to hear the cases?  Most southerners were themselves insurrectionists or had given aid or comfort to an insurrectionist.

Another reason for not requiring a conviction was that in general it was obvious who was an insurrectionist.  Most people did not hide what they believed and what they did.  In fact they were defiantly proud of their actions.  Again, sound familiar?

Since the vast majority of the population of much of the country were obvious insurrectionists the authors set the bar low for disqualification. If a person has engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the U.S. the 14^th Amendment finds the person is disqualified from holding office again. That disqualification could then be appealed to Congress. This put the onus for prompt action to reverse their disqualification on the insurrectionist rather than on election officials or courts.

Why didn't the authors add text that said if an insurrectionist were elected by voters, that should override the disqualification language of the 14^th Amendment? As stated above, in former Confederate states, how many Confederate officers (civil or military) would be overwhelming elected or selected again?  Many voters would clearly believe that insurrectionists had done nothing wrong. They agreed with the insurrectionists. So the 14^th Amendment does not disqualify insurrectionists from voting, it just says you can't vote for a former insurrectionist. Punish the oath breakers not the average voter.

Trump brags that he could shoot someone in a public space and his followers would still vote for him. Or he could be convicted of a felony and they would vote for him. Those supporters are telling us clearly that many of them will vote for him even though his participation in an insurrection is obvious to anyone willing to objectively look at the facts. These voters seem to believe that a person who did not honor their oath to uphold the Constitution or the rule of law should be allowed to further damage our country.

Donald Trump publicly tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power. If you don't believe that, you have to be willfully ignorant. On an almost daily basis he tells us how little he believes in the Constitution and the democratic institutions that have made us the leader of the world. He tells us how he will use his presidential and political power to remake our country. He had one term as president and we know how it went.  It ended with him trying to stop the peaceful transfer if power, a hallmark of our country

If we allow him to be elected again, and he begins to reshape our country in the illegal ways as he is promising, what do we do? (And no, he is not joking. Trump is only about Trump. Anything he says or does is just to help Trump.). Unless Democrats have super majorities in the House and Senate the constitutional solution of impeachment will not be an option (remember, we already tried that).  That will leave Donald Trump free to work very hard to remake this country in his image (as he is telling us he will) with few restrictions on his efforts. 

The Constitution make is clear that there are some candidates that are disqualified from holding office (age, citizenship, impeachment conviction, insurrection). Why should we make an exception for an insurrectionist Donald Trump?

14th Amendment Is Not Unfair to Trump Or Voters

This blog entry is a follow-on to my previous blog on whether the 14^th Amendment should be used to prevent Donald Trump from being president again.

Many Republicans believe that voters should be allowed to make the decision about Trump's fitness to be president again. They think it is unfair and possibly undemocratic to keep him off the ballot using the 14^th Amendment.

Of course they know that the Constitution disqualifies people from the presidency who were not citizens from birth or who are less then 35 years of age. I can only guess why the authors of those provisions thought it was important to include those restrictions in the Constitution. Certainly there are many foreign born, naturalized citizens who are obviously fully qualified to run for the position, but those restrictions are in the Constitution and will be enforced until they are amended.

Conviction in the Senate of impeachment carries the possibility of a sentence that includes the disqualification from holding office again.

So the argument that the use of the 14^th Amendment is merely a political maneuver by Democrats is false. Using the 14^th Amendment is proper use of Constitutional law just as disqualification based on age or citizenship status.

Should Voters Determine Trumps Fate?

Many Republicans are upset with the possibility that Donald Trump may not be allowed to run for the presidency because of his participation in an attempted insurrection. They believe the voters should decide whether or not he is fit to be president.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to that argument. But then I believe Al Gore and Hilary Clinton should have been president because more voters voted for them then for their opponents. Unfortunately, the Constitution and the archaic Electoral College dictated different winners.

I would be more sympathetic to Republican voter complaints of the unfairness of the 14^th Amendment if they coupled it with calls to replace the Electoral College with a simple counting of the votes for each ticket. 

I think the authors of the 14th Amendment specifically meant to exclude voters being allowed to vote for an insurrectionist candidate.  More to come...

14th Amendment Disqualifies Trump From Presidency

You don't see presidential candidates who are less than 35 years old or who are not US citizens by birth because those qualities are required by our constitution. Thanks to former president Trump there is another constitutional requirement that applies to presidential candidates that needs to be considered this cycle.

The 14th Amendment, Section 3 of the US Constitution makes it clear that a former office holder who has taken an oath to defend the Constitution and then participates in an insurrection or gives aid or comfort to a participant is disqualified from holding office. The 14th Amendment does not specify the criteria for imposing disqualification. It also does not require the legal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt or a conviction. We may eventually want an amendment, law or Supreme Court ruling to make this more clear, but for now we are faced with an immediate need and the Constitution provides a solution.

One obvious answer of who would enforce this requirement and decide what criteria they would use might be the person or offices in each state who would determine if a candidate meets other requirements to be on the ballot (such as age and citizenship).  I think the person who makes those decisions in most states is the Secretary of State.

Another option is a court ruling. A court in Colorado was asked to remove Trump's name as a presidential candidate from the Colorado ballot. The judge agreed that former president Trump “incited” the January 6, 2021 riots and backed that with evidence including testimony given to the House January 6^th Committee.

After clearly stating that former president Trump had participated in an insurrection, the judge accepted the defense claim that the presidency was not an office as required in the amendment. The judge agreed that if the authors of the amendment intended for it to apply to a former president they would have explicitly said that. The judge then refused to remove Trump from the ballot.

Granted that the amendment wording is very vague, but that sounds like a judge searching for a way to not remove Trump's name from the ballot. This will have to go to the Supreme Court and would have even if the judge's decision had gone the other way and had removed Trump's name from the ballot.

The most important thing is the judge clearly said former president Trump had participated in an insurrection. Of course, the January 6^th Committee also proved he incited an insurrection. I would argue there is stronger and more timely proof that Trump incited an insurrection.

Former president Donald Trump was impeached by a bipartisan majority in the House (including ten Republicans) for “incitement of insurrection”. Although there were not enough votes in the Senate to convict him, there was a bipartisan majority in the Senate (including seven Republicans) who believed he was guilty as charged. Every Representative and Senator who voted to impeach or convict knew that their vote would not remove former president Trump from office. President Biden had already been sworn in before the final Senate impeachment vote. However, their vote did show they believed former president Trump had participated in an insurrection and should not be allowed to be president again (impeachment conviction means the person is removed from office and disqualified from holding office again).  Their votes had nothing to do with the 14th Amendment, but they clearly declared he had participated in an insurrection and should not be allowed to serve again.

I believe the bipartisan majority votes for impeachment in the House and Senate are enough by themselves to satisfy the constitutional requirement to disqualify former president Donald Trump from becoming president again on a national basis, not just the state level. As I said, this will need Supreme Court approval, but a clear reading of the text should support his disqualification.

I hear a lot of claims that Trump's fitness to hold office again should be decided by voters.  I'm sympathetic to that claim, but the 14th Amendment was written after the Civil War to prevent southern sympathizers from electing people to offices in a government they violently tried to destroy.  That sounds close to the situation we face today.  We have a large segment of the citizens who seem very willing to re-elect a man who lies that the last presidential election was stolen, incited an insurrection, tried to overthrow the validly elected government (as certified by all state governments and many court cases) and continuously brags he will take unconstitutional actions if re-elected. The 14th Amendment is still in the Constitution and until it is revised  or revoked we should use it to counter a charlatan who seriously threatens our country.

 

Text of the 14^th Amendment, Section 3, to the United States Constitution

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

The highlights are mine.