Watch as MeidasTouch host and law professor Ben Meiselas gives the most comprehensive analysis yet on the 14th Amendment Section 3 disqualification issues surrounding Donald Trump — posted here on Meidas+ ad-free!
Share from 0:00
0:00
/
0:00
Transcript
Professor Meiselas Lectures on the 14th Amendment
Meidas+
Authors
MeidasTouch Network
Ben Meiselas
Recent Posts
For those who are confused by the Supreme Court’s decision, you should be. The majority decision ignores the plain language of the 14th Amendment Section 3. Please watch the full video. I go over the opinion of not just the majority but also by Justice Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson (Democratic appointees) who agree with me and probably you that the Supreme Court majority got it very wrong by saying Congress needs to pass legislation to declare a disqualification. They said they were writing “in protest” of the majority opinion by the right-wing justices. You have every right to feel betrayed by the Supreme Court ruling, but I am simply trying to let you know what the majority said and why it was met by a scathing response by the remaining justices. The Supreme Court interprets the constitution and until this bad ruling is overturned, this is the precedent. Unfortunately, if you answered differently, you would get the answer wrong on my law school exam.
But, I believe Americans would like to know if there is anything else could be done here. Americans should be heard, they're the ones who are going to spend the next 4 years in hell!
I understand Ben’s explanation that private attorneys couldn’t properly file suit given the Supreme Court holding legislation is required by Congress. But I fully agree we should be discussing what could be done. His explanation doesn’t fully address the explicit language of the Constitution that the already adjudicated insurrection infirmity can only be removed by a vote of 2/3 of each house of Congress.
Since the Court held only Congress can act, why can’t the current Congress introduce a bill to remove the infirmity? Since it will likely fail to pass by the required supermajority, Trump would not be sworn in. That’s consistent with Supreme Court precedent and previous Congressional actions refusing to seat elected insurrectionists. See United Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 550 (1969) (distinguishing between Congress’s power to expel a member, which requires a two-thirds majority, and the power to exclude a member who is constitutionally disqualified). All relevant state constitutions have a similar provision empowering state legislatures to judge the qualifications of their members.
The U.S. House of Representatives has previously used this authority to refuse to seat Member-elect Victor L. Berger in the 66th Congress. See Cannon’s Precedents, Ch. 157, § 56. After the Civil War, the House also debated whether to seat John Rice and Alfred Waddell, who faced allegations that they violated the Disqualification Clause. Hinds’ Precedents, Ch. 14. The U.S. Senate also invoked Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment when it refused to seat Zebulon Vance, who had previously served as governor of North Carolina during the Civil War. (Courtesy CREW).
The portion of the opinion that Ben highlights, isn't even dicta, nor is it in the scope of the case before them, so it is simply can not be binding on the lower federal courts.
Also, the reliance on Griffin's case requires a criminal charge, and therefor a federal law to override state law. However it also illustrates why it would not be relevant where a case for declaration and injunction consistent with what sec 3 mandates in federal civil court. It is the Supreme Court which is bound by sec 3, even in Anderson the Majority don't dispute what sec 3 instructs the court with it's plain meaning, they avoid sec 3 completely in the context of the case.
JOIN US FOR A PEACEFUL DEMONSTRATION.
https://nowmarch.org/
The majority did not vote for him, they invented stop the steal for a reason, so when he didn't win rightfully his sheep would fight fight fight for him.
Supreme Court Justices are not infallible. Precident should be followed but there are times when acting outside of norms to uphold the law is necessary.
I'm not a lawyer, and you are. But to me, acting on a corrupt precident for the sake of it is obeying in advance.
See the "separate but equal" doctrine.
So obey in advance?
Ben, there ARE linguistic ambiguities in their opinion, particularly in THAT portion of their opinion. I think those ambiguities are intentional, because if they mean what you think they mean, then they have gone outside their Article III powers. However if alternatively, the lower court (and their colleagues) are interpreting them overly broad, then they have plausible deniability, they did made the same claim that people interpret Bruen wrong, quite recently. If you don't confront them. as a lawyer about the ambiguities, and contradictions, then you let the broadest interpretation prevail. As officers of the court, you have a responsibility to represent your clients and use EVERY TOOL IN THE BOX.
The entire legal profession makes an enormous mistake, by not confronting them wherever they are simply wrong, or ambiguous. and by treating the ruling that way on a test, as a teacher you are complicit.
It's your responsibility as a lawyer, and your student's responsibility as future lawyers, to MAKE THEM SAY THE QUIET PART OUTLOUD, and not just mumble nonsense to support their arguments
so, as your student, I would deduct points from my esteem for making such a question "wrong"
you have to make them actually say "because we can do anything we want", if you presume that to be the case, you give them that power by default
I say that with the deepest affection and esteem, but law schools have to teach lawyers to check the supreme court or nobody will do it. It's more important than being right about how they'll rule on a given case, it's (particularly now) the most important part of their job, particularly when they do pro-bono work.
I saw this yesterday. Ben reads many explanations and paragraphs that are interpreted by the Supreme Court. We all know they are biased. I believe they will say anything to get Trump into office at the expense of our democracy and country. They do not care about the law. They only care about enriching themselves. It’s sad how greed is ruining our country. I also believe that the election was interfered with. That Elon Musk played a big part in this. The election should have been investigated!! I will not give up hope that Trump can be stopped. I’m hoping that our leaders wake up and declare the 14th amendment suitable to stop Trump. There are others who are not giving up either. These people give me hope. There is still time to do whatever we can to make this happen. There are too many of us who don’t want Trump in office.
I firmly believe the election was interfered with too, without a doubt.
Of course it doesn’t matter what we think!!!
Their tune would be totally the opposite, if it were by a far stretch of the imagine, that the Dems committed the exact same plan!
You bet it would because
narcissists are always right. They never accept defeat!
ONLY Republicans cheat !
Or that we would want an investigation. And god forbid anyone mentions this!! It’s okay for Trump to declare an investigation. I’m disappointed that no one, not even any of our leaders requested this!!! Jessica Denson is the only brave person in the media who is not giving up on amendment 14, section 3. She’s had a few experts, on the constitution, on her podcast, explaining that Trump has indeed been disqualified and should absolutely be removed from office!!!!However, no one is acting on his removal!!!! This is not only unconstitutional, but it is showing how lawless our country has become. Power and money are more important. There are no more leaders!! People have become leaders not by their qualifications, but by the money they have. Allowing money in politics has destroyed our nation. It’s no more about character, honesty, morality and integrity!!! We must get rid of Citizens United!!!!! I have added my name to petitions regarding this issue. So what the hell is happening with it???????
feel free to give this a read if it gives you any comfort that someone agrees that somebody needs to get off their ass and TRY:
SCOTUS DOCKET :
No. 24-617
Title: Joe Alter, Petitioner
v.
Donald J. Trump
Docketed: December 5, 2024
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Case Numbers: (24-5132)
Decision Date: September 4, 2024
Rehearing Denied: October 15, 2024
Date Proceedings and Orders
Nov 20 2024 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 6, 2025)
PetitionAppendixProof of ServiceCertificate of Word Count
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-617.html
The problem is we don’t have any more leaders in the house. No one to truly stand up for the people of this nation!!! There are too many idiots and crooks in Congress!!! We must look into peoples backgrounds when they are running for election and make sure they are the kind of leaders to help Americans!!! Research them!!!!!
The Supreme Court continues to pander to Trump.
I agree that Trump should have been disqualified. I think SCOTUS got it wrong.
Ben, what can we do to change SCOTUS? I can't believe there's no way to get these people off the Supreme Court. What would it take to change the constitution so we have scotus term limits or something to stop them from using their power to subvert the will of the people? Just like I believe the President shouldn't have total immunity, neither should scotus have no limits nor accountability.
Clearly our founders never thought this would happen.
If we hadn't dragged our feet and started fighting this when it happened instead of waiting until election time, i don't think we would be here now. I don't think VP Harris should certify on Jan. 6th. PERIOD!!!!
The VP's function is purely ceremonial. Congress passed another law in the past 4 years that made that even clearer than it was.
YES ABSOLUTELY!
I totally agree with you!
It ALREADY HAS HAPPENED.
In the second impeachment Congress has decided that Trump engaged in insurrection. The house passed articles of impeachment saying clearly that Trump engaged in insurrection, and in the trial, a majority of the senate voted yes on those articles of impeachment, just not the two thirds needed to remove him immediately.
Just nobody will enforce this decision.
Impeachment is the bringing of charges, but unfortunately he wasn't convicted in the trial. (Thanks, Moscow Mitch!) So that's like saying someone is guilty because they were charged with a crime even though they weren't convicted. They may be as guilty as sin but under the law they are not. God, after three of them in 30 years, I wish people would learn how impeachment works.
As I said it was not enough to remove Trump but it did fulfill the requirements the Supreme Court made for applying amendment 14,3.
Or seems that no one paid attention, otherwise Trump couldn't have been reelected.
Anyway, I'm not so sure that a president Vance would not be worse.
The Supreme Court is mentioned NOWHERE in 14A§3! It's a DEFACTO truth that can only be lifted BY 2/3 OF EACH HOUSE.
You never know, there just might come a time when enough Republicans get sick and tired of dealing with Trump and his ridiculous nominees, and could be convinced to vote to have him disqualified for office. But then do we get President Vance? Or will we have enough evidence by then to prove that Musk or someone else actually did hack the ballots in those seven battleground states and will Congress and the current Justice Department arrest him (or whoever is responsible) as well? And while we’re talking about this, why isn’t Musk already being arrested under the Logan Act?
Because he's a billionaire
Virtually no one of any party has ever been prosecuted under the Logan Act.
Ben. I am eager to listen to this as soon as I get the chance. Some of Dr. Bandy Lee's subscribers, including me were on a Zoom call on Sunday. Are we able to call Justice Murchan and ask him to order a neuro psych exam to assess for fitness for duty? Is that some thing ordinary citizens can do to get our voices heard or? I've called my Senator and asked for a meeting but have not heard back and thst was 1 month ago. I know you and your Medeis community all agree DJT is unfit for office. Mental pathology is rampant and Trump Contagion has taken hold. For the community here if you are not yet aware of Dr. BANDY Lee's work please check out her website and her Substack. Back in 2017 she held a meeting at Yale where she and other forensic Psychiatrists met to discuss the 'Duty to Warn' based on their ethics as Physicians. The APA shut them down due to the Goldwater Rule. Ben, I mentioned MTN to all of Dr. Lee's subscribers. I can't help but feel there is value in having her as a weekly contributor to your Network. Many I talk to are not familiar with her work. I don't know how I would be doing right now without your work, the MTN, this community and Dr. Lee's weekly newsletter and weekly Zoom call. Please, can we start a movement to prevent DJT from being sworn in to office inJanuary? TY for your consideration.
Did everyone see this today? https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/5055171-constitution-insurrection-trump-disqualification/
We are living in a time when words no longer mean what they mean so long as the corrupt Supreme Court decides they mean something else. Madness!
We need to flip as many seats in Congress as possible in 2026! Meanwhile we need our CURRENT Justice Department to investigate the hacking of the ballots in the seven battleground states! Prove it happened before January!
I don't think we can afford to wait that long. Think of the damage this demented man and his crew of misfits can can dispense in 2 years. I worry about the damage he can do in a couple days and Musk is extremely dangerous. He needs to be out of the picture. We didn't elect him for anything and doubt that people would.
Given that many Republicans recently voted against Trump raising the debt ceiling and shutting down the government, doesn't that at least give a glimmer of hope that some Republicans might actually support Trump's disqualification?
Nope I don’t have it backwards. Neither do you. We have it correct. The issue is that the majority in the Supreme Court ruled the opposite of what you and I believe and what the plain language is.
I bet they would if it was by secret ballot.
You have a corrupt Supreme Court so why would you allow them to overturn the original constitutional rule that stated a criminal cannot stand for office. That decision was a common sense decisions, that is if you want a fair & honest government. To change & allow a criminal shows America is happy with criminality in the highest of political power.
There was a scope to the appeal to SCOTUS. Do what the Constitution REQUIRES, and make the Supreme Court reject the Constitution.
It takes an act of Congress to let trump be president not the other way around.
Too bad we can't go back in time and make sure that Biden's first Congress enacted that law. I'm sure they would have if they had had a clue that SCOTUS would come up with this nonsense.
You misunderstood. Because he is disqualified, the 14th Amendment provides he could still take office if 2/3 of Congress voted to allow it.
And care what the Supreme Court thinks, why?? They made up laws to protect Donald Trump.
The Corruption of Congress, Senate, DOJ, Executive branch is very complete because the Ignorant, Corrupt in MIND and Spirit, and Apathetic Americans became the majority. Our only hope for Justice and Democracy to Prevail is to Educate the Ignorant and get the democratic people to go to the polls and Vote!
this clown was disqualified the day he was born.....now he's back again creating scandals before he's even back in office, which he never ever should be....we need some good old wild west vigilante justice here....get the orange freakazoid and his 6 right wing Freakeets on the SC and run em out of town on a rail...maybe deport their sorry asses to Panama.
NO. Congress has the authority to REMOVE the Disqualification!! YOU have it Backwards!! Congress has to RE-QUALIFY Him!!
I’m an idiot and I understand this!!
“...Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, *remove* such disability.”
It's just a VOTE! Just do it!!!
So, if Congress is the only vehicle to disqualify Trump, would it be by a simple majority of Congress or a 2/3 majority? If it is a simple majority can the disqualification be decided with a future (hopefully) Democratic majority?
It is a 2/3 majority that needs to remove the disqualification I believe. I for one, want to see it voted on
Right, section 5 says it takes 2/3 to remove a disqualification. But the Supreme Court is saying that Congress has to affirm the disqualification. I’m wondering if a a simple majority is all that would be required to say Trump is not qualified.
Nope, the Supreme Court ruled that a majority is needed to pass legislation to declare Trump “disqualified,” and the a 2/3 would later be needed to remove that disability and declare him qualified again. It makes no sense. It’s a horrible ruling to protect Trump and it’s not what the text says, but that’s what they ruled. That’s why the Dem appointees wrote a “protest” opinion.
If reality is contrary to their opinion, act on reality and force the court to justify itself.
I agree, makes absolutely no sense. No hope for a disqualification now, but we can hope for a democratic majority in 2 years. Much easier than trying to get a conviction in an impeachment trial.
The Supreme Court with its lifelong terms, back Trump. The House and Senate back Trump. The world’s 1% backs Trump. The problem is that the founding fathers never invoked this level of corruption.
Apart from a thus failed disqualification, remember than in addition to the outdated Electoral College system, a majority of voters knowingly cast their ballots for an civilly adjudicated rapist and someone who incited and watched a riot. This is today's America.
The SC got it exactly backwards. No surprise.
I am not an attorney but it was my impression at the time before the Supreme Courts Ruling that the 14th Amendment, Section 3 was sufficient to disqualify an insurrectionist -And that the way to remove this was to have Congress Act. Thank you Ben. You help me understand their use of “shutting the conversation/door”. Look at the line up if he could be removed now. Vance is frightening. If it was today Johnson as VP is dangerous
Professor, if it is self executing it is not up to Supreme Court. The Supreme Court only allowed him to be on the ballot; they did not at any time indicated that he was not an insurrectionist.
Something else Biden could do with a willful democratic majority (not holding my breath for it), is to simply remove at least two Justices for lack of "good Behaviour" using the same mechanism used for appointing and approving a justice in the first place. Anybody actually reading the constitution would not credibly think the framers meant for justices to be "impeached" using standards notably much higher than simply "good Behaviour". The clause directly before the one directing the judges "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour," was the impeachment clause addressing the executive branch. A search of the constitution shows that "Civil officer" is different from "Judicial officer".
While various publications of discussions of the constitution at the time of it's writing can be helpful, they are no substitute for the plain reading of the constitution which was written deliberately in plain language and is the document which was actually signed by the representatives of the various states.
The Justices would have no ability to counter this understanding and enforcement of the constitution since clearly they have an unavoidable conflict of interest and therefore can not possibly be impartial. Certainly it has been to the Judicial branch's advantage to interpret "during good Behaviour" to mean a lifetime appointment which can only be ended by death, resignation or the obviously very hard task (by design) of impeachment. Clearly if they meant for justices to serve on "good behaviour" as opposed to "high crimes and misdemeanors" the process to remove would be much simpler.
SCOTUS chose to focus on the fifth clause of the 14th amendment, and their justification, their one big issue they chose to claim was that they did not want a hodgepodge of states choosing to enable Trump to be on the ballot and those which did not.
However, the 14th amendment does not discuss the election process or ballots. It only forbids "hold any office, civil or military, under the United States" once they have violated their oath through insurrection or "aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.".
The Executive branch could choose to enforce this regarding a president, or others in the executive branch, just as congress could enforce it in their respective houses.
Biden will not do this. We have seen his choices. He COULD do it and simply dare SCOTUS to undo it. Harris would become president, not due to the election but because Biden can only serve two full terms. The constitution stands regardless of SCOTUS and SCOTUS Has no direct actual power over the executive branch and only wields the power of respect which they have cast aside.
He won the election. If he is prevented from taking office, all the paranoia magats have heretofore demonstrated will be vindicated. Violence will ensue, our national divisiveness will become even more entrenched. Also, his replacement, likely JD Vance, would use those same powers to screw us all anyway. I don't like it, but absent due process, I don't see how our coup would be any better in the long run than theirs. Trump is just one man, likely to die soon. But Trumpism, ignorance, bigotry, etc. has taken over one of only two political parties, and that party won EVERY branch of government. That's the nut we need to crack.
So, the "criminal 5" on the Supreme Court are now the only ones that can make the laws. The courts are CORRUPT, the POLITICIANS are CORRUPT. No wonder the country is in chaos and so much crime on the rise!
I do not know much about US law — but your argument is logical, clear, tightly argued; following from assumptions. What are the different assumptions SCOTIS is making to not end up in the same place you do; perhaps to end up avoiding this natural conclusion.
Nice job; I know logic is not law, but QED. :-)
Ben
Can congress when they get into power on 2026, the democrats, can then make this law?
Trump would not sign it though
Can’t they pass it after he vetoes it??
Also where is the out cry about the archivest (sp) to publish the ERA amendment that is complete except for the ? Publishing this?
Can President Biden just sign the ERA amendment and make it law?
How does it work?
Doesn't "engage in" imply "convicted of"?
my personal opinion is the same thing and I can tell you on experience in civil rights cases unless the law is written that no reasonable person can understand it on its face it should not even have to be addressed by the Supreme Court. These people are pieces of garbage. I don't think any reasonable person has any problem understanding what section 3 means and that means if we apply it on his face he should be thrown out and permanently barred from the government and raising any money and all of that stuff I am considering filing a case my problem right now is I got sick with pneumonia I believe I have two ulcers in my surgery and I'm having a little bit of trouble. But I think at the very least it would be worth it to file a case I'm also thinking it needs to be looked at because I've never tried to file something directly to the Supreme Court well I'd like to put these people on notice because I believe this is all going to end up bad and end up in a war and if it gets to that level we are going to clean house and get the QAnon out of our government. People don't realize how bad this is this corrupt court is going to rule against the people every single time you're gonna lose your clean water you're gonna lose your Social Security your Medicare you're unemployment your time and a half basically they're going to put us in a great depression. So I say wouldn't it be easier to take evasive of action first. I think we should at least assemble teams of veterans with the army Navy Air Force etc. so that when this guy goes full berserk we can fight back and say no that ain't happening and we will have the admirals and generals and everybody that have dedicated their life to Service will stand up for us. That's my opinion anyway there's no true patriot gonna support this conduct of a Messiah this is insanity.
hey you know who's behind the drones Its Gazoo
😹🤣🙀😂😱🤣😆😅😂🤣 the little green magical guy.
Merry Christmas everyone
This is awesome Ben. Love
The key of the majority order that rejected the violation stated a point I do not see covered. The court decision stated "RUN" which, to me, means that they can run, they just cannot "SERVE."That being said, I believe that this could be successfully argued, and overturned.
When the electoral votes are certified, Democrats in Congress should use the Jack Smith report to bring the issue of Trump’s insurrection back before the full Congress for a vote to put our representatives on record. Even if Congress does not find Trump himself to be an insurrectionist, if/when Trump pardons the Jan 6 insurrectionists, he would clearly be ‘giving aid and comfort’ to insurrectionists by the plain text of the disqualification clause. This would be reason once again to bring the issue before the full Congress.
Great point
Ben, STOP OBEYING in ADVANCE
I disagree, the ruling only stated that legislation would have to be passed for a State to disqualify. It DOES NOT say that it would be required for a federal official to disqualify directly, which CAN mean, that a 14sec3 case brought directly to a federal court can prevail.
The Anderson case also wished to intercept ballots, a case that did not interfere with ballots, COULD STILL prevail.
Without overturning the precedent.
The supreme court simply does not have the power to bar the lower courts from a constitutional imperative already passed by 2/3 of congress. WHY WOULD YOU NOT at least ask them to?
There is plenty of ambiguity in the opinion, and at least 4 (enough for cert!), appear to have much to say about it, it should be littigated.
We need to stop asking what THIS court -would- do, and start asking it to actually do it, and see what happens.
See my petition for certiorari, 24-617
SCOTUS has failed us. Set term limits and impeach 3 of them in particular.
Why do they need to be impeached? The constitution is clear as day that impeachment was meant for the executive branch and the judicial branch was only able to serve "during good Behaviour".
Because I said so. LOL. But seriously, they have been compromised. Two are bribe takers, who support the insurrectionists, the other one was never qualified for the position and got rammed down our throats.
Ben,
I said this elsewhere, but I appreciate your efforts to pull other lawyers in to help us understand this.
It is really helped me to wrap my head around it.
At the end of the day I am in agreement with Glenn kirschner that for the sake of the rule of law we must encourage Congress to do this.
There is a peaceful demonstration planned in Washington DC to encourage them.
I feel that we need to make an enormous showing in this peaceful demonstration.
I think many of us would appreciate it if you would help us get the word out.
https://nowmarch.org/
Many of us want Congressional Democrats to show us that they will fight for us.
Even if they lose my sense is that their efforts will be rewarded in the midterm.
If they do not make the attempt I think they will just look like cowards.
If they will not fight for us then what is the purpose of what we are calling democracy?
Thanks for your time.
The so called "Supreme Court" is corrupt. They work for the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society, Trump is immune thanks to judge Roberts. It is outrageous, but what do you expect from judges that take bribes. I guess the 3 liberals feel it is no use to reject the majority decision (except immunity).
Ben, I understand your explanation that private attorneys couldn’t properly file suit given the Supreme Court holding legislation is required by Congress. However, that doesn’t address the explicit language of the Constitution that the already adjudicated insurrection infirmity can only be removed by a vote of 2/3 of each house of Congress. Since the Court held only Congress can act, why can’t the current Congress introduce a bill to remove the infirmity? Since it will likely fail to pass by the required supermajority, Trump would not be sworn in. That’s consistent with Supreme Court precedent and previous Congressional actions refusing to seat elected insurrectionists. See United Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 550 (1969) (distinguishing between Congress’s power to expel a member, which requires a two-thirds majority, and the power to exclude a member who is constitutionally disqualified). All relevant state constitutions have a similar provision empowering state legislatures to judge the qualifications of their members.
The U.S. House of Representatives has previously used this authority to refuse to seat Member-elect Victor L. Berger in the 66th Congress. See Cannon’s Precedents, Ch. 157, § 56. After the Civil War, the House also debated whether to seat John Rice and Alfred Waddell, who faced allegations that they violated the Disqualification Clause. Hinds’ Precedents, Ch. 14. The U.S. Senate also invoked Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment when it refused to seat Zebulon Vance, who had previously served as governor of North Carolina during the Civil War. (Courtesy CREW).
Do you ever get the feel your law and constitution have no meaning if you are rich.
I disagree, the ruling only stated that legislation would have to be passed for a State to disqualify. It DOES NOT say that it would be required for a federal official to disqualify directly, which CAN mean, that a 14sec3 case brought directly to a federal court can prevail.
The Anderson case also wished to intercept ballots, a case that did not interfere with ballots, COULD STILL prevail.
Without overturning the precedent.
We need to stop asking what THIS court -would- do, and start asking it to actually do it, and see what happens.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-617.html
don't obey in advance
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-617.html
the problem with anderson, was that they wanted to execute it at the state level, a federal judge in a federal court, can still find it at the federal level
The fact that they "shut the door" tells us everything we need to know, imo. The majority are corrupt. The others are too weak. ACB is the interesting one tho imo. I remember Trump watching her during her confirmation, (or whatever that's called) like a predator watching prey, trying to predict how she might act. I wonder if she felt it? If she didn't know the assignment then, she knows it now.
https://youtu.be/pmzK3-dhsG4?si=1_LcEOHsM2e1q0mW
https://youtu.be/pmzK3-dhsG4?si=1_LcEOHsM2e1q0mW
Did you see/hear this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJdvwguteE8
I love Meidas, Ben, the whole nine yards, but man it gets harder and harder to listen to Ben's monotone delivery. Did he never take public speaking? Not much better then AI voicing...puts me to sleep. Like I said, I'm here for the long haul but Ben, take a note from Popok...he does not put us to sleep!!!!
I was the leader of my public speaking organization in college.
I liked your clear analysis, Ben, and I appreciate your explanations and clarifications. Sometimes lawyers, doctors, and other specialists "explain" things to non-specialists with language that we may not understand. I understood the common language you used and I thank you.
I thought the majority decision was that Colorado could not keep him off the ballot? But take the oath of office? He was found guilty of insurrection.
Nope the majority decision went further than the question before it, which is why the justices not in majority wrote a separate protest opinion. It is very clear when the majority opinion says, but that doesn’t mean I agree with it. The majority says for any purpose at all it requires legislation from Congress to disqualify.
To amend the Constitution requires 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress and approval by 3/4 of states. Meaning 38 states would have to vote for it, so changing lifetime limits to limited times would be a huge undertaking!
America's gonna witness in assassination soon because they are eliminating all forms of regress of a crooked government so that means there's only one form left the one that never fails. The golden buffoon's gonna get taken out by his own people because they're starting to wake up and realized they were used and they were lied to and there is nothing good gonna come out of any of this
It seems possible to me, that the Colorado Supreme Court, may have pushed the Federal Supreme Court to close the door. The door would still be opened, in my opinion.
Another informative video. Thanks!
Letting
How can we have a democracy when our Supreme Court just supported an autocracy they’re pissing on our constitution and we’re at them give this country to the worst human being that ever walked the Earth when in the hell will people realize that this is a scumbag?
... ok. so if Trump is disqualified ... would that mean Vance would become president?! That would be like going from the fire to the frying pan. ... does this mean we are had no matter what does or does not happen to Trump?! This possibility is beyond painful. It looks like it would be the final nail in the coffin. OMG!
When the Supreme Court and Congress has been corrupted what happens then????
When clearly the explicit language of the Constitution that the already adjudicated insurrection infirmity can only be removed by a vote of 2/3 of each house of Congress.
Get the Fn.... supreme court disqualified because of corruption!!!! Isn't all this because of corruption. The founders didn't anticipate the supreme Court and congress to be corrupted. They didn't SEE our situation or the fact that the Supreme court and congress would be corrupt!!!!!!!!!! But it is clear they didn't want this!!!!
Off subject—can a group of Americans sue DJT for his unprecedented dishonesty while serving as POTUS? I mean, would it go anywhere? (I have heard that anyone running for office has no legal requirement apparently to speak truth, but God help us if our president is not bound by anything to tell Americans the truth.)
I agree with you and would also add that the Supreme Court knew what it was doing and chickened out and said that congress needed to rectify this issue. This is absolutely inexcusable and this is just another example of why we the people are really pissed and have no respect for the Supreme Court. They have made their bed now let them lie in it.
Seems the Constitution doesn't specify laws only Congress? Why is. Emolument clause ignored?
As someone who gave birth to an attorney, but has not studied the law myself, I appreciate the methodical step-by-step. I think I finally understand. However, it seems that if the intention of the authors was to require section 5, section 3 would not be necessary and at the very least redundant. Therefore, it makes more sense that section 5 is included as a way to 'undo' section 3 should it apply.
The Supreme Court is now mostly maga !!
Could the J6 committee’s hearing’s findings be used/substituted as “legislation” or an “act” of congress in determining Trump’s disqualifications to hold office under 14:3?
Congressional members (likely Democrats) might attempt to bring these questions and evidence directly to SCOTUS through some protocol. I’m sure some old-timer Senator knows a back door.
Colorado should disbar their republican co-indurrecrtionists ?
Thank you for this lecture, Ben. I have so much to learn, apparently.
Why can't all maga republicans be disbarred as co insurrectionists?
Ben your correct.
But as DONvict has loaded SCOTUS they have become yes men to him !
It still does not address insurrection
The Supreme Court consist of corrupted justices. So Trump gets to destroy America, a guy who doesn't follow the law ever? That's totally unacceptable for Americans and the entire world. There will be major suicides over this conclusion!! But I guess it has to be what it is!
I appreciate your analysis. One of the reasons the justices stated (in a very long-winded and, imo, meandering way) for not agreeing with Colorado was that millions of votes wouldn't be counted. However, since elections are decided by the electoral vote, not the popular vote, and Colorado isn't one of the battleground states, I question the validity of that reasoning. One wonders why the framers of Article 14 didn't include Section 5 in with Section 3, since Section 5 seems to somewhat (excuse me) trump Section 3.
I think that we can all agree that 2/3 of the SCOTUS is corrupt. They are in bed with Shitler and nothing good will come out of the highest court in the land unless they level the court and apply term limits for Justices. 15 years max.
I think that the language of section 3 of the 14th ammendment is clear. SCOTUS just twisted it for dear leader. They (MAGA) are supposed to be non-partisan and they clearly are not and a few of them have discrepancies of their own and should be unbenched. More shit coming to light about Thomas and Alito.
And I still believe that Musk interfered in our election with his satellites. How did he know 4 hours before the results came out who won? He has also said on his shitty app that ANYTHING can be hacked. Think about that. There should be a fucking recount.
Especially considering how close the popular vote was.
Well, that sucks.
Congress can pass this!!!!
Congress includes the house and currently two 'extremely moderate' democrats in the Senate, so not holding my breath, especially if you include the filibuster in the senate. However, the president is charged, in his oath to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" which includes the 14th amendment regardless of any interpretation by SCOTUS regarding elections and ballots.
I "liked" your lecture, though I didn't "like" it :) You explained it so well, and you're correct in concluding that the whole thing sucks, and the result was not what we had hoped, but it is what it is. Thank you for your analysis.
Was Trump convicted of insurrection?.
That is a misstatement. Actually what happened is that Trump had the opporunity to be heard at an administrative due process hearing and lost. Those facts are not disturbed. SCOTUS said states could not enforce the Consitution, which does not preclude Congress.
It's like nobody took a course in administrative law.
If the event that the senate considers the motion, they can do fact finding also, but the Colorado hearing is still of record.
The 1% backs Trump as does the Congress, Senate, and Supreme Court. The MAGA level of corruption we have now has proven to be beyond the wildest imaginations of the founding fathers. Imagine pardoning Benedict Arnold. They hung their traitors.