I appreciate the balanced view on 14A as opposed to the self-deterrence that other Bulwarkers espoused in the last few days. It's a legitimate fight to have - a 14A DSQ in a swing state, if successful, could give the fake elector crowd a little taste of their own Madison.
On the fourteenth amendment I urge everyone that has facebook too look for a post from Cree Hadegree, GA Attorney. It outlines a GA case in 2012 that tried to keep Obama off the ballot on the grounds he wasn't a citizen. It is an illuminating read.
When shutting down the federal government is a desired outcome for a not small cohort of the GOP base, government shutdowns are not only likely but probable.
A couple points. The senate is the second worst institution in DC after SCROTUS. It should be abolished. It's antidemocratic to the core of its rotten stinking heart. Second, if the 14th amendment doesn't apply to tangeranus and the 140 members of the house and the dozen or so members of the senate that engaged in treason then it's hard to see why it even exists.
We need the Bulwark and honest media to continue to sell the 14th amendment disqualifications of Trump and the 120+ Green Bay Sweep in Congress. Just because Murdoch won't admit there was an insurrection is not enough to let it ride. Once the media had Edward Murrow - now we have entertainers.
The DOJ should also be pushing to remove the insurrectionists in Congress - they were asleep at the wheel when Ron Johnson ran last in Wisconsin. Issue them all target letters now. We know they plan to try to impeach Biden (because Congress has no interest in fixing the border or immigration) and the Freedom Caucus (the caucus of crazies) wants to stop funding the DOJ ( so they and Trump don't get prosecuted). JUST DO IT. Let's end the entertainment
The Chaos Caucus does not give a rat's a-- about shutting down the FAA, but their base in the farm states could have a different view of ending the Farm Bill through R inaction. That might be the lever to pull to get a CR for a while.
The average American barely gets a weekend off, much less a month off. It’s another sign of how out of touch Congress is with the lives of its constituents. But regarding the 14th amendment - I am frankly tired of caring about what Trump voters think about anything. That’s why it’s so important to make sure he doesn’t succeed in getting elected in 2024. One of the reasons for prosecuting all those J6 people is to drive home the point that when they don’t get their way, they can’t change the result by violence.
Loganbacon — I’m certainly with you in deeply feeling, “I am frankly tired of caring about what Trump voters think about anything.”
The ones I still speak to are twisting like a worm on a hook. Not too long ago, I had a neighbor tell a tale that started off immediately as stupid, and I must’ve started to frown because he sped up making his point fervently, but that just made him sound MORE immoral. His bluster ended with him kicking the toe of his boot into the dirt.
Only the Chaos Caucus, aka RINOs, contends that it is a Democrat problem. They love ignoring the old saying, when you point your finger at someone, remember that three more fingers are pointing back at you.
The Democrats do not control the House. Kraven Kevin thinks he does, but the Chaos Caucus has him by the short hairs because he was so greedy for the gavel that he gave them the power to kick him out by a single complaint.
A single Representative (of either party) can make a motion to "vacate the chair". But it requires a majority of the entire House to pass. Likewise, it takes a majority of the entire House to elect a new Speaker. In practice that means no one will make the motion unless they have a majority of votes lined up to pass it.
On the other hand, you're right that so long as Mr McCarthy remains Speaker, what the extremists want is what the House will deliver. But there is a solution, and it is precisely the "motion to vacate."
The cross-party alliance of moderate Republicans and Democrats that joined together to prevent a U.S. default a few months ago will also eventually pass the funding bills. At that time they can use the leverage of their bipartisan majority to strip Kevin McCarthy of his Speakership.
Using the same "motion to vacate" that the Freedom Caucus has been wielding as a threat, they can remove Mr. McCarthy and elect a moderate Republican Speaker, someone like Don Bacon (R-NE), who is committed to govern responsibly.
A network of ordinary citizens has been working to bring this about since January. Everyone who values an orderly functioning House of Representatives is encouraged to pitch in.
What am I missing here? The Republicans have the House majority so the Speaker is going to be a Republican. Don't both parties get to vote on the Speaker or is it just the majority party? Because if both parties have a say, are we really so divided that there weren't enough moderate Republicans along with some Democrats to elect a better Republican Speaker than McCarthy? Someone that the Dems could work with? I hate to think they thought it would be better to to just leave him twisting in the wind. That would seem to be a cynical mistake.
TW, Because of the way the House is organized, its committee structure and expectations of party discipline, the vote for Speaker is almost always strictly party line. That's why what we're urging Democrats to do would require uncommon political courage.
Likewise, it's extremely rare for Representatives to reject the leadership of their own Speaker, because that creates a split in party unity that remains after the vote. So again, moderate Republicans would need uncommon political courage.
But there are two things that can summmon such courage among individual Representatives: 1. Fear of losing the next election (moderates in swing districts), and 2. Threats to the institution itself by radical extremist members.
Both of those factors are currently in place. All that's needed is vigorous public support for taking a bold step. That's where we come in, at www.FeathersOfHope.net
Jerry, Thanks for the clarification and the beacon (Bacon?) of hope. Getting Rs and Ds to compromise on bills that are necessary to the continued functioning of government is one thing. But how realistic is it that enough Democrats, perhaps even elected on an "obstructionist" platform, opposing even some "mainstream" Democratic ideals, would vote for a Republican Speaker, whomever s/he is, to continue Republican policies which a majority of Ds oppose?
You are right that ordinarily Democrats do not vote for a Republican Speaker, David.
But MAGA extremists in the House are not ordinary politicians. They're not just another minority voting bloc like libertarians, or even the Tea Party.
The MAGA faction supports and identifies with January 6 conspirators, and speaks openly and proudly of a coming civil war. Their intent is to obstruct and disrupt, not to legislate. They actively wanted a U.S. debt default, and now they actively want to shutdown the government. They are a threat to the institution itself.
During the marathon voting for Speaker in January, the idea of a bipartisan coalition to elect a compromise candidate was under serious consideration until McCarthy finally made enough concessions to eke out a victory. Now that we've had 8 months of MAGA dominance in the chamber, with their complete disdain for the concerns of other Members, we at FeatherOfHope,net believe the time is ripe to reconsider that option.
Realistic? Who knows? There's surrender and there's resistance.
Yep. I guess it's a coin toss as to whether we get a government shutdown or another Speaker fight. Somehow I can see it being both. Not sure how lucky we'll be with getting the spending bills through, even with the continung resolution.
Shutting the government down has not just one, but TWO bad sides for Republicans- doing it right before an election (before CHRISTMAS, even) never works out for Republicans and the faux impeachment and Hunter Biden investigations will stop (nothing to run to Fox News about!)
And yet they keep using it as a cudgel and a threat. If they would simply work with the Democrats and compromise, I bet they would get more of their agenda accomplished, since the US tilts to the right. But that would be work and acceptance that the federal government has its uses.
Realistically, - - owing to the degree of public exposure of the 14th Amendment, it is inevitable that someone will sue on that basis. Then the fat will be in the fire! Alan, you appear to be correct except that, should the Supreme Court find against Trump, - - you underestimate the teeth-clenched fury that will erupt among the MAGAs, as stoked by DJT himself. But, like the costs of a war, those deaths, etc must be met by a strong Democracy, in service of it's own continuation.
If you think things are a mess now, just think how it might go if Trump or a Trump-Republican is elected, Schedule F is implemented, the "Deep State" is emasculated by firing all those senior career civil servants, and they are replaced by loyal MAGA operatives.
And the Constitution is obliterated or torn to shreds by thug who makes himself the President-with-no-end-date. Democracy will be trampled, as well as our standing in the world.
A lot of the MAGA base will be surprised when they are not at the front of the line or in the line at all, since the Jim Jordan/MTG cronies will elbow the rubes out of the way.
It seems to me that, unlike the qualification of being 35 or a natural citizen, this (dis)qualification needs to answer two questions before it can work: Was it an insurrection/rebellion and did trump "engage" in it. Are the advocates of unilateral state action sure they will be happy with how the Extremes answer this? I can see the originalists saying rebellion requires riding a horse into battle wielding a bayonet.
There plainly was violence and disorder, which by the account of all known participants was *intended to stop the transfer of power* to Biden. That's what they all said they were doing, on the day. Many of them said they felt they were acting at the direct instruction of Trump, in his rally speech that morning and on twitter.
Definitely. And we'd like to be able to preserve the ability to prosecute folks for it. A "too protective of trump" definition by the Extremes may foreclose that in the future.
I'm proud to be an Originalist AND a Textualist, and as far as I'm concerned, Trump qualifies for insurrection; horses and bayonets are optional, although it wouldn't surprise me if some bayonets had been around on January 6.
Spears were and firearms, too, all of which were available in 1776 and before and were "around" and used on 6 January. TFG is reliably reported to have said to remove metal detectors from screening those attending his rally. Does anyone really wonder why?
Regarding the 14th Amendment, it appears that there will be legal challenges that will get to courts. Thus, the courts will have to consider the arguments. I don't believe that the courts can simply throw out such cases on the basis of standing because presumably any registered voter would have standing to determine who is and who is not qualified to be on a ballot as a candidate for president.
Assuming that courts must address the issues on which qualification is determined, the courts must determine that an insurrection has occurred and that Trump participated in or aided such insurrection.
If the courts determine that, for purposes of the 14th Amendment, no insurrection occurred, think of how damaging such a holding would be. Trump and his allies will be emboldened to push greater violence having the courts determine that the violence and the attack on the Capitol on January 6 was not an insurrection.
Similarly, if the courts determine that January 6 was an insurrection, but that Trump did not participate and did not aid the insurrection, such a holding would embolden Trump and his allies to go even further in trying to overturn an election loss in 2024 having the courts determine that the actions of Trump and his allies in the time leading up to January 6 was not participating in or aiding the insurrection.
If Trump's qualifications under the 14th Amendment to be President is presented to the courts, the courts cannot abrogate their responsibilities to decide matters properly brought before them. While the politics of such cases may be grist for numerous pundits and podcasts, nonetheless the courts must ultimately enter their opinions and if the courts determine that Trump is disqualified, it doesn't matter what his supporters believe.
"...presumably any registered voter would have standing to determine who is and who is not qualified to be on a ballot as a candidate for president". I find that hard, not to say impossible, to presume.
Each state has an official, elected or appointed, but sworn in either case, who has the duty to verify that candidates are qualified for the ballot, by age, criminal record, residence, etc. THAT is the individual who has the authority to deny a person a place on the ballot for violating 3/14. John/Joan Q. Public has no duty or right to make that decison for the State (or whatever body for which the ballot is intended). His/her choice is to vote for whomever s/he wishes on the ballot or to write in someone not on the ballot. Then the authorized official, if a decision has not already been made, has to decide of there is a basis to disqualify that write-in person.
All voters have a vested interest in who is and who is not qualified for an elected office. While voters are not the only possible parties to seek court determination of this question, individual voters are not limited in their voting to only the persons whose names are on a ballot.
I never said voters were limited: "His/her choice is to vote for whomever s/he wishes on the ballot or to write in someone not on the ballot."
And a "vested interest" is not the same as a legitimate duty to make a determination. Any court wishing to duck the issue could rule that John or Joan have no specific standing to demand a premature determination by the elected official. I think the court would be right to do so, but that is only my "vested" opinion.
Or they can avert the whole thing and center it on his continued support of adjudicated insurrectionists as illustrated by his promises to pardon them & his recent fundraiser.
Reading the Sargent article has me asking this question : do we believe Trump's most ardent followers have any faith in our institutions regardless?
I appreciate the balanced view on 14A as opposed to the self-deterrence that other Bulwarkers espoused in the last few days. It's a legitimate fight to have - a 14A DSQ in a swing state, if successful, could give the fake elector crowd a little taste of their own Madison.
On the fourteenth amendment I urge everyone that has facebook too look for a post from Cree Hadegree, GA Attorney. It outlines a GA case in 2012 that tried to keep Obama off the ballot on the grounds he wasn't a citizen. It is an illuminating read.
When shutting down the federal government is a desired outcome for a not small cohort of the GOP base, government shutdowns are not only likely but probable.
It is shameful what the GOP has become.
Well if any of them could feel shame.
A couple points. The senate is the second worst institution in DC after SCROTUS. It should be abolished. It's antidemocratic to the core of its rotten stinking heart. Second, if the 14th amendment doesn't apply to tangeranus and the 140 members of the house and the dozen or so members of the senate that engaged in treason then it's hard to see why it even exists.
We need the Bulwark and honest media to continue to sell the 14th amendment disqualifications of Trump and the 120+ Green Bay Sweep in Congress. Just because Murdoch won't admit there was an insurrection is not enough to let it ride. Once the media had Edward Murrow - now we have entertainers.
The DOJ should also be pushing to remove the insurrectionists in Congress - they were asleep at the wheel when Ron Johnson ran last in Wisconsin. Issue them all target letters now. We know they plan to try to impeach Biden (because Congress has no interest in fixing the border or immigration) and the Freedom Caucus (the caucus of crazies) wants to stop funding the DOJ ( so they and Trump don't get prosecuted). JUST DO IT. Let's end the entertainment
It’sa mess because Mitch isn’t doing his job
Somehow we need the people to read and understand Project 2025
and EXACTLY what that will
mean to this country on a very wide basis, if Trump or
another republican is voted
President.
As for the 14th Amendment. 4 indictments. 91 felonies charged. It will only take conviction of 1.
The Chaos Caucus does not give a rat's a-- about shutting down the FAA, but their base in the farm states could have a different view of ending the Farm Bill through R inaction. That might be the lever to pull to get a CR for a while.
The average American barely gets a weekend off, much less a month off. It’s another sign of how out of touch Congress is with the lives of its constituents. But regarding the 14th amendment - I am frankly tired of caring about what Trump voters think about anything. That’s why it’s so important to make sure he doesn’t succeed in getting elected in 2024. One of the reasons for prosecuting all those J6 people is to drive home the point that when they don’t get their way, they can’t change the result by violence.
Loganbacon — I’m certainly with you in deeply feeling, “I am frankly tired of caring about what Trump voters think about anything.”
The ones I still speak to are twisting like a worm on a hook. Not too long ago, I had a neighbor tell a tale that started off immediately as stupid, and I must’ve started to frown because he sped up making his point fervently, but that just made him sound MORE immoral. His bluster ended with him kicking the toe of his boot into the dirt.
I finished putting the air in my tires.
They are lost people.
The Senate passed all 12 appropriations bills out of committee before their recess.
First time that's been done in years.
Democrats are not the problem.
Only the Chaos Caucus, aka RINOs, contends that it is a Democrat problem. They love ignoring the old saying, when you point your finger at someone, remember that three more fingers are pointing back at you.
It is a Democrat problem. They are governing and not trying to eliminate the federal government. When will they get with the program?!?
The Democrats do not control the House. Kraven Kevin thinks he does, but the Chaos Caucus has him by the short hairs because he was so greedy for the gavel that he gave them the power to kick him out by a single complaint.
David, that's not exactly accurate.
A single Representative (of either party) can make a motion to "vacate the chair". But it requires a majority of the entire House to pass. Likewise, it takes a majority of the entire House to elect a new Speaker. In practice that means no one will make the motion unless they have a majority of votes lined up to pass it.
On the other hand, you're right that so long as Mr McCarthy remains Speaker, what the extremists want is what the House will deliver. But there is a solution, and it is precisely the "motion to vacate."
The cross-party alliance of moderate Republicans and Democrats that joined together to prevent a U.S. default a few months ago will also eventually pass the funding bills. At that time they can use the leverage of their bipartisan majority to strip Kevin McCarthy of his Speakership.
Using the same "motion to vacate" that the Freedom Caucus has been wielding as a threat, they can remove Mr. McCarthy and elect a moderate Republican Speaker, someone like Don Bacon (R-NE), who is committed to govern responsibly.
A network of ordinary citizens has been working to bring this about since January. Everyone who values an orderly functioning House of Representatives is encouraged to pitch in.
Learn more here: https://www.FeathersOfHope.net
.
What am I missing here? The Republicans have the House majority so the Speaker is going to be a Republican. Don't both parties get to vote on the Speaker or is it just the majority party? Because if both parties have a say, are we really so divided that there weren't enough moderate Republicans along with some Democrats to elect a better Republican Speaker than McCarthy? Someone that the Dems could work with? I hate to think they thought it would be better to to just leave him twisting in the wind. That would seem to be a cynical mistake.
TW, Because of the way the House is organized, its committee structure and expectations of party discipline, the vote for Speaker is almost always strictly party line. That's why what we're urging Democrats to do would require uncommon political courage.
Likewise, it's extremely rare for Representatives to reject the leadership of their own Speaker, because that creates a split in party unity that remains after the vote. So again, moderate Republicans would need uncommon political courage.
But there are two things that can summmon such courage among individual Representatives: 1. Fear of losing the next election (moderates in swing districts), and 2. Threats to the institution itself by radical extremist members.
Both of those factors are currently in place. All that's needed is vigorous public support for taking a bold step. That's where we come in, at www.FeathersOfHope.net
.
Jerry, Thanks for the clarification and the beacon (Bacon?) of hope. Getting Rs and Ds to compromise on bills that are necessary to the continued functioning of government is one thing. But how realistic is it that enough Democrats, perhaps even elected on an "obstructionist" platform, opposing even some "mainstream" Democratic ideals, would vote for a Republican Speaker, whomever s/he is, to continue Republican policies which a majority of Ds oppose?
You are right that ordinarily Democrats do not vote for a Republican Speaker, David.
But MAGA extremists in the House are not ordinary politicians. They're not just another minority voting bloc like libertarians, or even the Tea Party.
The MAGA faction supports and identifies with January 6 conspirators, and speaks openly and proudly of a coming civil war. Their intent is to obstruct and disrupt, not to legislate. They actively wanted a U.S. debt default, and now they actively want to shutdown the government. They are a threat to the institution itself.
During the marathon voting for Speaker in January, the idea of a bipartisan coalition to elect a compromise candidate was under serious consideration until McCarthy finally made enough concessions to eke out a victory. Now that we've had 8 months of MAGA dominance in the chamber, with their complete disdain for the concerns of other Members, we at FeatherOfHope,net believe the time is ripe to reconsider that option.
Realistic? Who knows? There's surrender and there's resistance.
.
Yep. I guess it's a coin toss as to whether we get a government shutdown or another Speaker fight. Somehow I can see it being both. Not sure how lucky we'll be with getting the spending bills through, even with the continung resolution.
Shutting the government down has not just one, but TWO bad sides for Republicans- doing it right before an election (before CHRISTMAS, even) never works out for Republicans and the faux impeachment and Hunter Biden investigations will stop (nothing to run to Fox News about!)
And yet they keep using it as a cudgel and a threat. If they would simply work with the Democrats and compromise, I bet they would get more of their agenda accomplished, since the US tilts to the right. But that would be work and acceptance that the federal government has its uses.
Realistically, - - owing to the degree of public exposure of the 14th Amendment, it is inevitable that someone will sue on that basis. Then the fat will be in the fire! Alan, you appear to be correct except that, should the Supreme Court find against Trump, - - you underestimate the teeth-clenched fury that will erupt among the MAGAs, as stoked by DJT himself. But, like the costs of a war, those deaths, etc must be met by a strong Democracy, in service of it's own continuation.
What a surprise: the gop is overrun by nihilists and so rather than govern it does nihilistic things.
If you think things are a mess now, just think how it might go if Trump or a Trump-Republican is elected, Schedule F is implemented, the "Deep State" is emasculated by firing all those senior career civil servants, and they are replaced by loyal MAGA operatives.
And the Constitution is obliterated or torn to shreds by thug who makes himself the President-with-no-end-date. Democracy will be trampled, as well as our standing in the world.
Dear God, Can we have a reset?
A lot of the MAGA base will be surprised when they are not at the front of the line or in the line at all, since the Jim Jordan/MTG cronies will elbow the rubes out of the way.
Emphasis on RUBES
Yes, but remember that they will complain about the elites' elbows, not the MAGA grifters' elbows.
It seems to me that, unlike the qualification of being 35 or a natural citizen, this (dis)qualification needs to answer two questions before it can work: Was it an insurrection/rebellion and did trump "engage" in it. Are the advocates of unilateral state action sure they will be happy with how the Extremes answer this? I can see the originalists saying rebellion requires riding a horse into battle wielding a bayonet.
There plainly was violence and disorder, which by the account of all known participants was *intended to stop the transfer of power* to Biden. That's what they all said they were doing, on the day. Many of them said they felt they were acting at the direct instruction of Trump, in his rally speech that morning and on twitter.
Definitely. And we'd like to be able to preserve the ability to prosecute folks for it. A "too protective of trump" definition by the Extremes may foreclose that in the future.
I'm proud to be an Originalist AND a Textualist, and as far as I'm concerned, Trump qualifies for insurrection; horses and bayonets are optional, although it wouldn't surprise me if some bayonets had been around on January 6.
I'm not disputing that it says Insurrection to me. But I'm not the justice, or injustice as the case may be.
Spears were and firearms, too, all of which were available in 1776 and before and were "around" and used on 6 January. TFG is reliably reported to have said to remove metal detectors from screening those attending his rally. Does anyone really wonder why?
He gave the game away when he said, "They're not here to hurt ME." He just can't help himself.
Regarding the 14th Amendment, it appears that there will be legal challenges that will get to courts. Thus, the courts will have to consider the arguments. I don't believe that the courts can simply throw out such cases on the basis of standing because presumably any registered voter would have standing to determine who is and who is not qualified to be on a ballot as a candidate for president.
Assuming that courts must address the issues on which qualification is determined, the courts must determine that an insurrection has occurred and that Trump participated in or aided such insurrection.
If the courts determine that, for purposes of the 14th Amendment, no insurrection occurred, think of how damaging such a holding would be. Trump and his allies will be emboldened to push greater violence having the courts determine that the violence and the attack on the Capitol on January 6 was not an insurrection.
Similarly, if the courts determine that January 6 was an insurrection, but that Trump did not participate and did not aid the insurrection, such a holding would embolden Trump and his allies to go even further in trying to overturn an election loss in 2024 having the courts determine that the actions of Trump and his allies in the time leading up to January 6 was not participating in or aiding the insurrection.
If Trump's qualifications under the 14th Amendment to be President is presented to the courts, the courts cannot abrogate their responsibilities to decide matters properly brought before them. While the politics of such cases may be grist for numerous pundits and podcasts, nonetheless the courts must ultimately enter their opinions and if the courts determine that Trump is disqualified, it doesn't matter what his supporters believe.
"...presumably any registered voter would have standing to determine who is and who is not qualified to be on a ballot as a candidate for president". I find that hard, not to say impossible, to presume.
Each state has an official, elected or appointed, but sworn in either case, who has the duty to verify that candidates are qualified for the ballot, by age, criminal record, residence, etc. THAT is the individual who has the authority to deny a person a place on the ballot for violating 3/14. John/Joan Q. Public has no duty or right to make that decison for the State (or whatever body for which the ballot is intended). His/her choice is to vote for whomever s/he wishes on the ballot or to write in someone not on the ballot. Then the authorized official, if a decision has not already been made, has to decide of there is a basis to disqualify that write-in person.
A sworn official, sworn to uphold the constitutions of their state, and of the United States.
All voters have a vested interest in who is and who is not qualified for an elected office. While voters are not the only possible parties to seek court determination of this question, individual voters are not limited in their voting to only the persons whose names are on a ballot.
I never said voters were limited: "His/her choice is to vote for whomever s/he wishes on the ballot or to write in someone not on the ballot."
And a "vested interest" is not the same as a legitimate duty to make a determination. Any court wishing to duck the issue could rule that John or Joan have no specific standing to demand a premature determination by the elected official. I think the court would be right to do so, but that is only my "vested" opinion.
I'd be surprised if "any registered voter" were accepted as having standing. Any Secretary of State, though, that would be a tough one to deny.
Or they can avert the whole thing and center it on his continued support of adjudicated insurrectionists as illustrated by his promises to pardon them & his recent fundraiser.