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

LeftInTX

(25,664 posts)
48. The amendment does not prevent people from running for office. It prevents people from holding office
Tue Mar 5, 2024, 09:36 AM
Mar 5

It has been used several times by congress and the senate to prevent people from being seated.

One person who was charged/convicted of espionage ran in the special election in his vacated seat and won again. He was kicked out again.
He eventually ran again, won and was seated. Somewhere in all of this, his espionage conviction was overturned. (Early 20th Century, Red Scare)

It was the house's decision not to seat and to seat the congressman.

In both cases, they got the George Santos treatment. The other was a confederate. He didn't run again for federal office, but I believe he may have held a state position.

Article 2, (age etc) is "eligibility", amendment 14 is "holding office".

___________________

The section 3 of the 14th Amendment is vaguely worded and subject to interpretation. Former confederates did eventually hold federal office.

Charles S. Thomas of Colorado was the last Confederate veteran to serve in the Senate. Born in Georgia, he served briefly as a teenager in the Confederate Army. He settled in Denver after the war, where he built a law practice and pursued a Senate career. Following three failed attempts to gain a Senate seat, the 63-year-old Thomas finally became a U.S. senator in 1913, a position he held until 1921. During his years in the Senate, Thomas became known for a rather unconventional habit that marked the arrival of springtime in the Senate Chamber.

https://www.americanheritage.com/confederates-congress-heritage-or-hate

At the outbreak of the Civil War, Crisp enlisted in the 10th Virginia Infantry and was commissioned a lieutenant. He served with that regiment until May 12, 1864, when he was taken prisoner at the Battle of Spotsylvania Court House.

After the war Crisp studied law and passed the bar. He was elected to Congress from Georgia in 1882, and served until his death in 1896.

From 1890 until his death, he was leader of the Democratic Party in the House, as either the House Minority Leader or the Speaker of the House.

Boy I'll bet the states' rights people will be all over this. Permanut Mar 4 #1
Absolutely, the Supreme Court punted. gab13by13 Mar 4 #2
They ran off the field and hid triron Mar 4 #6
But the state has the authority to make it hard, even impossible, for people to vote. patphil Mar 4 #3
the crooks, i mean republicans on the court samsingh Mar 4 #4
Thank you. Refreshing to hear someone else say this. triron Mar 4 #5
9-0 is hard to argue with. Silent Type Mar 4 #7
6 assholes and 3 chickenshits. triron Mar 4 #8
Yep, I hope the 3 aren't allowing themselves to be bullied. brush Mar 4 #10
What's even harder to argue with is the amendment. brush Mar 4 #9
I thought Tribe and Luttig were way off the mark when they started this. Luttig is difficult to listen to, as well. Silent Type Mar 4 #12
'see post 32. brush Mar 4 #34
OK. So you would have made it 9 to 1. Silent Type Mar 4 #36
You're misunderstanding. SCOTUS was right in ruling a state, brush Mar 4 #37
If it's self-executing, then citizens of all stripes should be able to challenge tRUMP's eligibility on any state SWBTATTReg Mar 4 #26
What makes an insurrectionist an insurrectionist? Polybius Mar 4 #39
Do you think Section 5 came into play. SYFROYH Mar 4 #11
Good question. brush Mar 4 #15
The right is for states' rights except when they're not Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Mar 4 #13
Wouldn't the opposite be true too with some? Polybius Mar 4 #40
How do you respond to the liberal justices' argument that the amendment limits state's power, not expands it? mathematic Mar 4 #14
IMO SCOTUS got one thing right, that a state, any state, doesn't have the authority to not allow a candidate... brush Mar 4 #18
If the position is... Think. Again. Mar 4 #29
So who decides if Trump was guilty of insurrection ripcord Mar 4 #16
Ahhhhh...do you not believe your lying eyes? We all watched it on TV. brush Mar 4 #17
So in all court cases if we have video we don't need a trial? ripcord Mar 4 #19
IMO the 14A Sec. 3 is correct. Insurrectionist are not eligible. brush Mar 4 #20
True as that is, he hasn't been tried and convicted for that or any other actions related to January 6. Jedi Guy Mar 4 #21
I agree with Judge Luttig and others that it's self-executing. brush Mar 4 #23
Okay. You're entitled to believe whatever you like, even if it isn't true. N/T Jedi Guy Mar 4 #25
See post 32. brush Mar 4 #33
Under our system of justice you have to have a trial. totodeinhere Mar 4 #27
Not according to the wording of Sec.3 of the 14A. brush Mar 4 #32
Yes I have heard the interpretation that you are mentioning. totodeinhere Mar 4 #35
Does this mean states can't disqualified candidates running for state or any lower office? LiberalFighter Mar 4 #22
14A Sec. 3 says yes, no office in any state...and no military officers either. brush Mar 4 #24
In its ruling the Supreme Court did say that states do totodeinhere Mar 4 #28
Which is a reasonable ruling pinkstarburst Mar 4 #30
Agreed.. n/t totodeinhere Mar 4 #31
not really a good argument for letting an actual traitor back into office. Basically a strawman argument. Blues Heron Mar 5 #47
And yet, states routinely disallow people from appearing on the ballot Hermit-The-Prog Mar 4 #38
That isn't the states keeping someone off the ballot ripcord Mar 4 #41
The federal government is only involved via the U.S. Constitution Hermit-The-Prog Mar 4 #42
The Court ruling has to do with the 14th amendment. totodeinhere Mar 4 #43
The 14th Amendment specifies a qualifier, just as Articles I, II, Am XXII. Hermit-The-Prog Mar 4 #45
You are leaving off Sec. 5 former9thward Mar 4 #44
Sec. 5 also says that the State, meaning the United States... brush Mar 5 #46
The amendment does not prevent people from running for office. It prevents people from holding office LeftInTX Mar 5 #48
Ineligible? brush Mar 5 #49
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»On SCOTUS ruling that Col...»Reply #48