Trump’s Most Unhinged Plans for His Second Term
Trump’s Most Unhinged Plans for His Second Term
He’s openly plotting to persecute his enemies, assume kinglike powers, and deport millions of people. But at least we’ll all have flying cars!
Many of Trump’s proposals for his second term are surprisingly extreme, draconian, and weird, even for him. Here’s a running list of his most unhinged plans.
You're viewing a single thread.
Trump is already disqualified from holding any office, let alone that of the President, under section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4591133
Page 17:
V. The persons who framed Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment regarded the President of the United States as an officer of the United States
The President of the United States was among the officials who took the oath to the Constitution that under Section Three triggered disqualification for participating in an insurrection. As noted in the previous section, the persons responsible for the Fourteenth Amendment sought to bar from present and future office all persons who betrayed their constitutional oath. “All of us understanding the meaning of the third section,” Senator John Sherman of Ohio stated, “those men who have once taken an oath of office to support the Constitution of the United States and have Fourteenth Amendment distinguished between the presidential oath mandated by Article II and violated that oath in spirit by taking up arms against the Government of the United States are to be deprived for a time at least of holding office.” No member of the Congress that drafted the the oath of office for other federal and state officers mandated by Article VI. Both were oaths to support the Constitution. Senator Garrett Davis of Kentucky saw no legal difference between the constitutional requirement that “all officers, both Federal and State, should take an oath to support” the Constitution and the constitutional requirement that the president “take an oath, to the best of his ability to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.” Senator James Doolittle of Wisconsin declared that Congress need not pass laws requiring presidents to swear to support the Constitution because that “oath is specified in the constitution.”
In fact, the exact question of whether the disqualification from public office covered the Presidency came up at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was being drafted: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/lsb/lsb10569
Specifically:
One scholar notes that the drafting history of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment suggests that the office of the President is covered:
During the debate on Section Three, one Senator asked why ex-Confederates “may be elected President or Vice President of the United States, and why did you all omit to exclude them? I do not understand them to be excluded from the privilege of holding the two highest offices in the gift of the nation.” Another Senator replied that the lack of specific language on the Presidency and Vice- Presidency was irrelevant: “Let me call the Senator’s attention to the words ‘or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States.’”
I’ll highlight that last bit again:
Another Senator replied that the lack of specific language on the Presidency and Vice- Presidency was irrelevant: “Let me call the Senator’s attention to the words ‘or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States.’”
That is from this paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3748639
Some people seem to have a lot of trouble with figuring out what "or" means, in a list of things.
That doesn't EXPLICITLY say they can't be President. - a Judge in Colorado who probably would also rule the framers PROBABLY meant AR15s in the Second Amendment despite it not being explicitly said.
Yes, actually, that's exactly what it means. He broke his oath of office. He is not fit to hold any public office including that of the President, and he is barred from holding office by the Constitution of the United States. Period dot, and of story.
The courts, so far, don't agree. Unfortunately.
Incorrect. The judge in Colorado ruled he broke his oath of office and engaged in an insurrection, which is what makes the ruling so coo-coo bananapants.
There are people in powerful positions who may try to interpret this as favorably to Trump as possible to let him off the hook for it, holding as much integrity for themselves as they can while still achieving the goal. Are you sure it will hold up? I'm not, unfortunately.
Not with the conservative shills on this Supreme Court, no. Not when it really counts. This is the product of several generations of conservative activism to stack the courts with partisan judges for conservative causes.
I can't really find fault with the ruling. The amendment specifically calls out very important positions like senators and representatives, and even electors for POTUS...but they just plumb forgot the even more important position of POTUS? It's really hard to believe.
I don't know why they would exclude the POTUS, and few want trump off the ballot more than me, but the argument that the POTUS is not included is very reasonable.
The text literally says "any office". Not sure what you're talking about here.
So why do you think they left POTUS out of the list when they listed out other important positions? Why not just say "any office" is that's all inclusive?
Read the excerpt, then go read the rest of the paper at the link. The context of why is in the other sections, before and after 5 which I quoted above.
I read the excerpt, and it makes no mention of why they explicitly call out senators but not the post, and vaguely referencing a 55 page paper just leads me to believe you have no explanation.
If this is not the case, could you put the argument in your own words?
Oh, by all means. You see the President has to take an oath of office to defend the Constitution, and the Framers thought that nobody in their right minds could be stupid enough to think that the Fourteenth Amendment didn't apply to the Office of the President, or the person holding that Office, because the Fourteenth Amendment applies to whether people who break their Oaths of Public Office get to hold Public Office. To wit, they do not. Not unless a quorum of the sitting government says they can with a vote to that effect, anyway.
As such, it was obvious to the Framers that this would also bar someone from the Presidency. As it says in the context I asked you to read.
You're not arguing why one and not the other, but why it should apply to the POTUS even though it doesn't say POTUS.
I'm not saying I disagree, but the same argument could be made for senator or representative as well. So why call out these specifically and not the other?
If you're resting your hat on "well it obviously applies to senator but not POTUS" when I would think, without specific clarification, that it would obviously apply to both ... Well then I think they justified her ruling as reasonable.
Everyone who takes an oath of office is covered by the Fourteenth Amendment. Why?
THEY ALL TAKE OATHS OF OFFICE
That's it. That's the answer to your question. If you want to know why the Fourteenth Amendment was written, that's also in the paper I linked. Your weaponised ignorance disguised as well-meaning debate only works as long as you aren't being obviously disingenuous.
That’s the answer to your question.
No, it isn't. This is even a shift from your previous argument. But, again, it's just why you think the POTUS is included, but not why they explicitly call out senators but not the POTUS.
It's fair to say you don't know, which is basically what I'm saying here, but claiming that I'm weaponizing my ignorance when I'm asking you to explain, while you're claiming a conclusion is clear despite yours... Well that seems incredibly backwards.
Donald Trump hasn't been convicted of participating in or inciting a coup. He did both, don't get me wrong. But he shouldn't be barred from office until he is convicted of these crimes in a court of law.
It's fine if you feel that way personally, but it doesn't matter; that's not part of the requirements for triggering Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Read the text.
The text does not disagree with me and your opinion sets a dangerous precedent. In your interpretation of the amendment, anyone can say "they insurrected" and use that to bar their opponents from holding office to guarantee a dictatorship. You can be 100% certain Donald Trump will use this to run completely unopposed and stay in power. Requiring a conviction in court eliminates this possibility, or at least greatly diminishes the possibility.
Besides, when has "we all know he did it" ever been enough to strip a citizen of their constitutional rights?
Going down this path can only lead to ruin.
I agree that "we all know he did it" is a terrible reason to take procedural action of any kind, but again: your personal feelings don't change the fact that the text doesn't lay out any way to actually execute Section 3, it only states the requirements for triggering it. Go ahead and quote those requirements, verbatim and in full. I'll wait; you will find they don't say anything about being convicted of anything.
I'm not saying that it wouldn't set a dangerous precedent, only that the reasons given for throwing out these cases are so flawed they're not even specious, they're just plain wrong.
Maybe I'm not articulating my point well enough. You're talking about stripping a US citizen of their constitutional rights. A court conviction is absolutely required and I'll tell you why. Donald Trump is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. You cannot legally say that Donald Trump participated in rebellion or insurrection against the United States, because he hasn't been convicted of that. If he hasn't been convicted of that, you can't bar him from office. It doesn't matter that the constitution doesn't explicitly require a conviction, because a conviction was surely thought to happen quickly when the amendment was drafted. I can't imagine the legislators who drafted this thought we would be having this conversation two years after the coup but here we are.
And just for the record: Donald Trump 100% lead a coup against the United States and should absolutely be barred from office... after he has been convicted of leading the coup. And if our legal system can't convict him before the next election, then it is incapable of keeping a tyrant from power and the American experiment will have failed with disastrous results.
Maybe I'm not articulating MY point well enough. If someone breaks their oath of office (and by the way that has indeed now been found to be a fact in a Court of Law), they cannot be trusted to keep their oath of office. This is not my opinion, this is written into the Constitution of our country.
The ruling in Court is necessary, of course, for the reasons you have given. But Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require it. The text of the Amendment says nothing about convictions. That is what I am saying. If you think it does, show me the text. If you can't quote me the text that says a conviction is required, then you still haven't understood my point.
Edit: bolded the part where I acknowledge what you are saying is correct, because that is important text you should pay attention to.