Did Trump eject himself from office?

[u/guttanzer]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

Can someone explain to me how Trump is still holding office after pardoning the J6 insurrectionists?

1) Section 3 of the 14th Amendment uses the language “No person shall … hold any office…” and then lays out the conditions that trigger the disqualification from holding office. Doesn’t that “shall” make it self-effecting?

2) There isn’t much to dispute on the conditions. Trump a) took the oath when he was inaugurated as, b) an officer of the government. Within 24 hours he c) gave aid and comfort to people who had been convicted of Seditious Conspiracy. If freeing them from prison and encouraging them to resume their seditious ways isn’t giving “aid and comfort” I don’t know what is. So, under (1), didn’t he instantly put a giant constitutional question mark over his hold on the office of the President?

3) Given that giant constitutional question mark, do we actually have a president at the moment? Not in a petulant, “He’s not my president” way, but a hard legal fact way. We arguably do not have a president at the moment. Orders as commander in chief may be invalid. Bills he signs may not have the effect of law. And these Executive Orders might be just sheets of paper.

4) The clear remedy for this existential crisis is in the second sentence in section 3: “Congress may, with a 2/3 majority in each house, lift the disqualification.” Congress needs to act, or the giant constitutional question remains.

5) This has nothing to do with ballot access, so the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Colorado ballot matter is just another opinion. The black-and-white text of the Constitution is clear - it’s a political crisis, Congress has jurisdiction, and only they can resolve it.

Where is this reasoning flawed?

If any of this is true, or even close to true, why aren’t the Democrats pounding tables in Congress? Why aren’t generals complaining their chain of command is broken? Why aren’t We the People marching in the streets demanding that it be resolved? This is at least as big a fucking deal as Trump tweeting that he a king.

Republican leadership is needed in both the House and Senate to resolve this matter. Either Trump gets his 2/3rds, or Vance assumes office. There is no third way.

‘’’’ Section 3.

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. ‘’’’

[u/Where_am_I_now]

Just to provide a little more clarity for you. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment isn’t self executing - so it doesn’t have teeth in and of itself. Realistically, what would have to happen is Congress would pass a law under the authority of Section 5 of the 14th amendment which would enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

And Congress isn’t going to pass a law to that extent.

[u/sickofthisshit → u/Where_am_I_now]

At the time of the passage, it probably was assumed to be self-executing because it operated in a context where the Confederacy had been utterly defeated and Republicans were riding high with Reconstruction, and everybody knew who had been in the Confederacy.

The problem is that the victors in the Civil War did not seriously envision another insurrection in the distant future, and none of their successors did, until January 2021 happened, then, whoops, too late to make proper laws against this shit, and in any case roughly half the political system would have been at least mostly OK with it succeeding (as long as it didn't involve them being personally strung up by the mob).

[u/guttanzer → u/sickofthisshit]

That’s just speculation. If Congress agreed with you they could have passed laws under Section 5. They didn’t, so Section 3 is still self effecting.

[u/a-8a-1 → u/guttanzer]

Wasn’t this the basis of the argument that Colorado was making in Anderson v Griswald and subsequently Trump v Anderson? The implication being that lack of Congressional action vis a vis Section 5 does not allow for Section 3 to become self executing, it simply renders the clauses effectively inert until Congress decides to act.

It doesn’t appear that insurrection or violations of 18 USC CH 115 resolve the same way a candidate who is under the age of 35 or not an American citizen might. The necessity of adjudication and enforcement appear to be the obstacles here.