Officers of the United States: Neither the President nor Vice President are Officers of the United States

[KG1]

Possible decision coming soon? I've heard speculation from some media law pundits that it could come down perhaps tomorrow, if not on Monday because of super Tuesday approaching.

I've heard some interpretations of the oral arguments by some legal experts on how this might be decided based on how some justices, especially Kwami Jackson Brown questioned the "officer" argument seemingly in favor of that it doesn't apply to the POTUS and VP because they are not specifically mentioned in the wording of the 14th sec. 3 and it could be decided on those grounds.

 

[JAL]

Possible decision coming soon? I've heard speculation from some media law pundits that it could come down perhaps tomorrow, if not on Monday because of super Tuesday approaching.

I've heard some interpretations of the oral arguments by some legal experts on how this might be decided based on how some justices, especially Kwami Jackson Brown questioned the "officer" argument seemingly in favor of that it doesn't apply to the POTUS and VP because they are not specifically mentioned in the wording of the 14th sec. 3 and it could be decided on those grounds.

I've seen and heard nothing more other than it's imminent. How imminent is imminent?


However . . . if a POTUS or VPOTUS has been in some other office that is an Officer of the U.S. the 14th could be applicable. Donald Trump is the only POTUS I know of who hasn't been in some other office, elected or appointed, that is encompassed by the 14th Amendment. It doesn't stipulate last office held, or highest office, or when, only that one is, or was held in the past.

 

[jamil]

I've seen and heard nothing more other than it's imminent. How imminent is imminent?

It’s coming any day now next month.

 

[chipbennett]

It’s coming any day now next month.

February 30th, probably.

 

[KG1]

I've seen and heard nothing more other than it's imminent. How imminent is imminent?


However . . . if a POTUS or VPOTUS has been in some other office that is an Officer of the U.S. the 14th could be applicable. Donald Trump is the only POTUS I know of who hasn't been in some other office, elected or appointed, that is encompassed by the 14th Amendment. It doesn't stipulate last office held, or highest office, or when, only that one is, or was held in the past.

Could perhaps be applicable but they are trying to disqualify Trump for alleged acts of "insurrection" committed while he was POTUS. Not some prior act as an "officer" The specific language of the 14th Sec. 3 doesn't allow for that. No alleged acts took place as an "officer." and I believe SCOTUS will bear that out in their decision.

 

[JAL]

Could perhaps be applicable but they are trying to disqualify Trump for alleged acts of "insurrection" committed while he was POTUS. Not some prior act as an "officer" The specific language of the 14th Sec. 3 doesn't allow for that. No alleged acts took place as an "officer." and I believe SCOTUS will bear that out in their decision.

The historical context of the amendment when adopted was disqualifying those who had served in various elected and appointed offices in the U.S. Government or State Governments (taking the required Article VI Oath) regardless of when they had done so, prior to the war (versus when the war started) -- and then served in the Confederacy during the war -- blocking them from returning to an elected or appointed office in the U.S. Government following the war. The fear was former Confederates contaminating the U.S. and State Governments as the Confederate States were readmitted during Reconstruction (aka "The South will rise again!"). During that era, Carpetbaggers from the North exploiting this were prolific in the South. The authors of the amendment considered the Article VI Oath of Office binding for life, not limited to when one was in office.

Trump is unique in that he never held any other elected or appointed government office, not even Town Dogcatcher, much less one enumerated in the amendment. We'll see what SCOTUS says but I believe the Majority Opinion will be centered around the exact, precise construction of Sections 3 and 5 in the Amendment. May be some ancillary discussion about historical intent during Reconstruction. We'll see.

 

[KG1]

Yes I do understand in a more concise nutshell that the disqualification clause under the 14th was basically designed by the authors to restrain the states during reconstruction after the civil war from doing things like interfering with elections (insurrection) against the government because they were concerned with southern senators being re-elected putting somebody in their electors or within congress who once took up an oath of the confederacy against the United States after previously taking an oath as an "officer" to support the US Constitution.

Now as I was saying we are specifically dealing with this current situation regarding Trump and how the 14th applies to him for accused acts of "insurrection" as POTUS and whether or not the 14th even applies to a POTUS or VP regarding disqualification.

I've also mentioned in previous postings that the decision, which I believe will be handed down soon will most likely be based on the specific language of Sec. 3 which excludes the POTUS and VP by omission and I do think that the language of the 5th giving congress and not the states the authority to enforce the 3rd could play a part in the decision as well.

We're basically on the same page here.

 

[JAL]

. . .
I've also mentioned in previous postings that the decision, which I believe will be handed down soon will most likely be based on the specific language of Sec. 3 which excludes the POTUS and VP by omission and I do think that the language of the 5th giving congress the authority to enforce the 3rd could play a part in the decision as well.

We're basically on the same page here.

Regarding Trump, we are. As with you, I believe it will be held the states cannot do what they're attempting on two grounds: omission of POTUS office in Section 3, and only Congress having authority to enforce by Congressional Act in Section 5.

As an aside, Illinois -- not to be outdone -- is the latest state to climb on board the "Banned from the Ballot" train this week, virtue signaling the hard-core Democrat voter base to rile them up into a frenzy.

 

[chipbennett]

Could perhaps be applicable but they are trying to disqualify Trump for alleged acts of "insurrection" committed while he was POTUS. Not some prior act as an "officer" The specific language of the 14th Sec. 3 doesn't allow for that. No alleged acts took place as an "officer." and I believe SCOTUS will bear that out in their decision.

And the other, big hurdles:

1. "Insurrection" has a specific, statutory definition. Trump has never even been charged with it.
2. How can a sitting president commit insurrection against himself?

 

[KG1]

Possible decision coming soon? I've heard speculation from some media law pundits that it could come down perhaps tomorrow, if not on Monday because of super Tuesday approaching.

In a rare Sunday afternoon upcoming schedule announcement posted on the SCOTUS website it has an indication that opinions may be posted on the homepage on Mon. March 4th. @10am There will be no opinions handed down from the bench on Monday. They will only be posted on the SCOTUS homepage.

Supreme Court to release decisions Monday, with Trump Colorado ruling a strong possibility

A ruling on whether Colorado can kick Trump off the primary ballot is highly anticipated ahead of Tuesday’s primary.

www.nbcnews.com

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has indicated it will issue rulings on Monday, one of which could be the highly anticipated decision on whether Colorado can kick former President Donald Trump off the primary ballot.

The court noted on its website on Sunday afternoon that rulings are expected.

Could possibly be the opinion for the !4th Sec 3 disqualification issue.

Supreme Court of the United States Home

 

[JAL]

In a rare Sunday upcoming schedule announcement posted on the SCOTUS website it has an indication that opinions may be posted on the homepage on Mon. March 4th. @10am There will be no opinions announced from the bench on Monday. Only on the SCOTUS homepage.

Supreme Court to release decisions Monday, with Trump Colorado ruling a strong possibility

A ruling on whether Colorado can kick Trump off the primary ballot is highly anticipated ahead of Tuesday’s primary.

www.nbcnews.com

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has indicated it will issue rulings on Monday, one of which could be the highly anticipated decision on whether Colorado can kick former President Donald Trump off the primary ballot.

The court noted on its website on Sunday afternoon that rulings are expected.

Could possibly be the opinion for the !4th Sec 3 disqualification issue.

Supreme Court of the United States Home

View attachment 337365

Unfortunately they don't cite which opinions will be published, just that one or more will be, leaving those that follow the court on tenterhooks. A "feature" of their decision announcements.

 

[jamil]

Unfortunately they don't cite which opinions will be published, just that one or more will be, leaving those that follow the court on tenterhooks. A "feature" of their decision announcements.

Well they need to get that opinion in soon or Colorado is going to have the vapors.

 

[KG1]

Unfortunately they don't cite which opinions will be published, just that one or more will be, leaving those that follow the court on tenterhooks. A "feature" of their decision announcements.

Yep, They never do give an indication of which opinion will be forthcoming. It sure would be a tension builder if it's not the disqualification ruling because it's become so highly anticipated.

It should be noted that the court doesn't give an indication, but the RvW forthcoming opinion announcement was leaked.

 

[KG1]

Well they need to get that opinion in soon or Colorado is going to have the vapors.

They might even get the running ****s.

 

[JAL]

Well they need to get that opinion in soon or Colorado is going to have the vapors.

They should take a few more tokes on their bongs (legal there) and chill out some . . .

 

[chipbennett]

Well they need to get that opinion in soon or Colorado is going to have the vapors.

Sort of.

CO stayed its decision to remove Trump from the ballot, so he will appear on the (already printed/mailed) primary ballots regardless of the SCOTUS decision. The real issue is that the voters need to know if they are voting for a candidate who will appear on the general ballot. Not knowing that outcome potentially disenfranchises CO primary voters, who would undoubtedly cast their ballot for someone other than Trump, if SCOTUS were to uphold the CO decision to bar Trump from the ballot.

 

[KG1]

Is today the day? Look for it to be posted at the link. IDK why it says the 2008 term but if you click on the link, it gives the most recent opinions.

2008 Term Opinions of the Court

 

[chipbennett]

Reversed, 9-0:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf

 

[JAL]

When I saw "Per Curiam" at the top I knew the reversal of Colorado was unanimous. There are several separate concurrences from the majority opinion giving their own take on the issue -- but the basic end result is unanimous.

 

[KG1]

This decision applies to all of the States. Stick a fork in it.

"This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency."