Evidently you're unaware of all the cases where some have plead guilty and/or been found guilty of precisely the language in the article. So, check... there are such people. Secondly, there are members in congress who have and continue to offer aid and comfort to those who've been found guilty by the facts in earlier court proceedings...

Trump had and does as well, and that ought be check mate.

The cases you cited were clearly about slavery, and the violation of voting rights, not about section 3. The “self-executing” as it is described in both your cases is about nullifying the power of the states to violate those rights. The disqualification section is not about a state violating rights, and therefor it cannot be said that that particular section is self-executing and immediately bars someone from the holding office should some state court decide they are guilty of insurrection.

What is clearly self-executing is the due process sections of the 14th, which, according to dissenting opinions in the case, occurred in the ruling, thus nullifying the state court’s authority.

Either way I assume the Supreme Court will clarify the matter.

How many were charged and convicted of insurrection?

Attempting to obstruct an official proceeding such as the peaceful transfer of power counts as an offense that disqualifies one. Offering those people aid and comfort also disqualifies one.

It doesn’t. The section speaks of insurrection and rebellion, not for some witness tampering crime.

Well no... sedition and seditious conspiracy is enough. We have that too!

Like Eugene Debs. He was convicted of sedition but was nonetheless able to run for president from prison.

That's a matter of enforcement... nothing else. Some people run stop signs too, and yet the cop doesn't ticket them. It's an offense nonetheless.

Trump has been found guilty of offering aid and comfort to people who are guilty of sedition. That disqualifies him from holding public office.

Well, no, the constitution doesn’t mention sedition nor seditious conspiracy.

Look again. Sedition is rebellion against the United States

Trump has been found guilty of offering aid and comfort to people who are guilty of sedition. That disqualifies him from holding public office.

He has not been found guilty of any such thing.

Look again

“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.”

No sedition.

What those cases show is that the inclusion of a “congressional power of enforcement” section in an amendment does not entail that the other sections in that amendment are not self-executing and can only be enforced by Congress.

Therefore your claim that the inclusion of Section 5 in the 14th Amendment entails that Section 3 is not self-executing and can only be enforced by Congress is unjustified. There is nothing in the text that suggests Section 3 to be unique in that regard. Any reasonable interpretation of the Constitution will grant it the same status as being self-executing and subject to judicial enforcement.

Well, no, the constitution doesn’t mention sedition nor seditious conspiracy. — NOS4A2

Also seditious speech has been ruled as non protected speech, besides the 14th amendment clause:

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. — US Constitution, 14th Amendment, Clause 3

He has not been found guilty of any such thing. — NOS4A2

By anyone who looks.

No sedition. — NOS4A2

Rubbish. Sedition against the United States is both rebellion and insurrection. Trump and many congress members were involved, have and continue to offer aid and comfort to those already found guilty of sedition and seditious conspiracy... ahem... rebellion and insurrection against the United States.

Those cases also don’t show that it is self-executing, especially since that section has rarely (if ever) been litigated. What has been litigated and has been shown to be self-executing, thus nullifying state power, are the rights entailed within those amendments, one of which has been violated in the case of Trump according to dissenting opinions.

Seditious conspiracy is insurrection and rebellion? Then why didn’t they get charged for insurrection and rebellion?

Seditious conspiracy is insurrection and rebellion? Then why didn’t they get charged for insurrection and rebellion — NOS4A2

Does not matter. Rebelling against the transfer of power with arms nonetheless is enough.

Surely it does matter because you’re trying to conflate two different crimes and laws.

I'm conflating nothing. Sedition is enough.

Sedition is not a rebellion against the United States government. A rebellion against the United States is not an insurrection. Sedition is not an insurrection.



I suppose you'd agree with all that?

Surely it does matter because you’re trying to conflate two different crimes and laws. — NOS4A2

It’s all interpretation but how is a sitting president encouraging protests and then not doing anything about it when they get violent and storm the capitol, not in that definition? Also, why don’t you find the video clips where Trump said if he loses, he will have lost unfairly BEFORE the elections even took place? That means he didn’t even agree to the election as a real thing to begin with!

People threatening to hang Mike Pence are not enemies of the US either, I suppose...

:roll:

What do you even call this, if it is coupled with everything else? If you don't even believe in the fairness of the system you are running in, and thus even if you lose, you ADMIT that it can never be otherwise, otherwise the system is rigged, and then you actively call for violent rallies near the capitol, and actively have rhetoric about stopping the count, and then not stop rally-goers from getting out of control, part-and-parcel of the same thing? I don't get how there's even a doubt really.

No, Debs was convicted of sedition, not seditious conspiracy. Even though it wasn't parallel, let's assume Debs' case made him technically ineligible to serve as President. This just means a state with a law like Colorado's could have omitted him from the ballot (were there any?). The fact that no State did this has no bearing on applying the law in other cases.

He did get on Twitter and told them to be peaceful and go home, to respect law enforcement, etc.

I said he was convicted of sedition.

He did get on Twitter and told them to be peaceful and go home, to respect law enforcement, etc. — NOS4A2

You mean THREE HOURS after the protestors started breaking into the Capitol??