The 14th Amendment clearly states that Trump, having held office and then participated in an insurrection, could not hold any government office, including that of the President. It is not a requirement that he be convicted, by the way. According to our US Constitution, he was simply ineligible for office, so if we’re following the Constitution, then he isn’t currently President. As JD Vance wasn’t sworn in, either, the office is simply vacant.
So, basically, my point is that what you’re saying is only true if we’re following the Constitution. Since we’re not following the Constitution, it’s not clear what the rules are anymore. Just ask Trump with his Trump 2028 merchandise.
The argument is probably that (A) the only way to say that he participated is to convict him, otherwise he’s considered innocent and (B) he didn’t participate, he just incited it (using language that was just vague enough to make it difficult to prove).
I think you’re essentially correct with regard to the text, but I think if you take the obvious intentions of the authors into account, then Trump shouldn’t have been allowed to run, and shouldn’t have been allowed to be sworn in.
It’s a giant problem, but I think that if you look into the circumstances of the 14th Amendment, it was clearly to stop officials from the Confederacy from becoming US government officials, the vast majority of whom (all of whom?) were never convicted of insurrection. I think the authors intentions were clear. If you engaged in something that was like an insurrection, then you simply can’t run for office, even if the situation was not completely clear. I think the amendment was more-or-less designed to prevent people in almost the exact same situation as Trump from becoming government officials.
On top of that, I’ve been told he can never be president.
The 14th Amendment clearly states that Trump, having held office and then participated in an insurrection, could not hold any government office, including that of the President. It is not a requirement that he be convicted, by the way. According to our US Constitution, he was simply ineligible for office, so if we’re following the Constitution, then he isn’t currently President. As JD Vance wasn’t sworn in, either, the office is simply vacant.
So, basically, my point is that what you’re saying is only true if we’re following the Constitution. Since we’re not following the Constitution, it’s not clear what the rules are anymore. Just ask Trump with his Trump 2028 merchandise.
The argument is probably that (A) the only way to say that he participated is to convict him, otherwise he’s considered innocent and (B) he didn’t participate, he just incited it (using language that was just vague enough to make it difficult to prove).
I think you’re essentially correct with regard to the text, but I think if you take the obvious intentions of the authors into account, then Trump shouldn’t have been allowed to run, and shouldn’t have been allowed to be sworn in.
It’s a giant problem, but I think that if you look into the circumstances of the 14th Amendment, it was clearly to stop officials from the Confederacy from becoming US government officials, the vast majority of whom (all of whom?) were never convicted of insurrection. I think the authors intentions were clear. If you engaged in something that was like an insurrection, then you simply can’t run for office, even if the situation was not completely clear. I think the amendment was more-or-less designed to prevent people in almost the exact same situation as Trump from becoming government officials.