Several academics—including members of the conservative Federalist Society— are now arguing that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment prohibits Donald Trump from becoming president. They focus on the language that prohibits anyone who “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion… or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” from holding “any office.” The amendment provides no mechanism for determining whether a candidate falls within this disqualification, though it says that “Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each house, remove such disability.” Significantly, the text does not authorize Congress—or any other body or individual—to impose the disqualification in the first place.
All this is fine and dandy. But the fact is that the democratic/ communist party is above the law and can do what ever they want with no accountability. Jurisprudence in America longer exist . What no one is talking about or even bother to discuss, is - who is in reality running the country and that is Borack Obama and his cabinet that is now the Biden cabinet. Biden is incapable of even knowing what day of the week it is. This is why when Obama left the white house, he stayed in Washington. D C .
We now see as you do clearly mentioned that Al Gore can challenge an election all the way to SCOTUS and back snd that Democrats in Congress can challenge presidential election results as they did in 2004 and 2016 but when Republicans challenge elections based on end a rounds of the Electors Clause and evidence of fraud the prone opponent of an incumbent faces multiple indictments ala Banana Republic style in venues where their chances of a fair trial are slim to none
I think the 14th amendment is an even more ridiculous argument then Dershowitz says. Even with Smith's Jan 6 indictment, Trump is not charged with insurrection. He is charged with defrauding the government, disrupting government activity and denying rights to other Americans. None of those charges involves insurrection.
How can the 14th amendment even begin to apply if Trump has not even been charged with insurrection?
Could you please do a legal analysis or legal comparison of these two defamation cases, Ray Epps vs Fox News and Nick Sandmann vs CNN? I know these aren't criminal cases but they are significant cases that could have ramifications of free speech of the press down the road. These two defamation cases have some similarities but yet there are some significant differences. Maybe offer one of your legal predictions.
Prof. Dershowitz, please defend, before the US Supreme Court, our rights as voters to vote for or against candidates for public office who didn’t participate in the Civil War, but have been inappropriately barred as candidates by the 14th Amendment.
Thank you for clarifying this. I had considered the mention of insurrection or rebellion as certainly referring to the Civil War South until I looked for the direct pronoun “the” in the writing and didn’t find it. But neither is the pronoun “a” used. I do note this time that the pronoun “the” is used in the subtitle, meaning the insurrection or rebellion refers to one specific event, limited to a period whose people are no longer with us, making it no longer applicable. Note: I never considered J6 anything but a PsyOp/riot.
This is a very educating article which I appreciate, but this sentence: “It is absolutely certain that if Trump were disqualified by some person or institution dominated by Democrats, and if the controversy were not resolved by the Supreme Court, there would be a constitutional crisis.” sickened me.......we are living in a Constitutional Crisis where the gulag BorgDems are doing anything but following the Constitution.....Really, Mr. Dershowitz?.......where is the constitution being followed....where?.......every case against Trump has been unconstitutional and a crisis but we are a communist country now.....why even bother to quote the Constitution a great Godly document ... seriously....makes me mad......i respect that you are erudite and i respect your knowledge but so much of what once would have been relevant that you share with us is no longer applicable or relevant .........also, I have one question....where in hell does it say in the 14th Amendment that illegal women having their babies here in the USA makes their babies citizens.....nowhere....
All this is fine and dandy. But the fact is that the democratic/ communist party is above the law and can do what ever they want with no accountability. Jurisprudence in America longer exist . What no one is talking about or even bother to discuss, is - who is in reality running the country and that is Borack Obama and his cabinet that is now the Biden cabinet. Biden is incapable of even knowing what day of the week it is. This is why when Obama left the white house, he stayed in Washington. D C .
We now see as you do clearly mentioned that Al Gore can challenge an election all the way to SCOTUS and back snd that Democrats in Congress can challenge presidential election results as they did in 2004 and 2016 but when Republicans challenge elections based on end a rounds of the Electors Clause and evidence of fraud the prone opponent of an incumbent faces multiple indictments ala Banana Republic style in venues where their chances of a fair trial are slim to none
I think the 14th amendment is an even more ridiculous argument then Dershowitz says. Even with Smith's Jan 6 indictment, Trump is not charged with insurrection. He is charged with defrauding the government, disrupting government activity and denying rights to other Americans. None of those charges involves insurrection.
How can the 14th amendment even begin to apply if Trump has not even been charged with insurrection?
100% correct!
I agree with this, well done.
REQUEST
Could you please do a legal analysis or legal comparison of these two defamation cases, Ray Epps vs Fox News and Nick Sandmann vs CNN? I know these aren't criminal cases but they are significant cases that could have ramifications of free speech of the press down the road. These two defamation cases have some similarities but yet there are some significant differences. Maybe offer one of your legal predictions.
Prof. Dershowitz, please defend, before the US Supreme Court, our rights as voters to vote for or against candidates for public office who didn’t participate in the Civil War, but have been inappropriately barred as candidates by the 14th Amendment.
Thank you for clarifying this. I had considered the mention of insurrection or rebellion as certainly referring to the Civil War South until I looked for the direct pronoun “the” in the writing and didn’t find it. But neither is the pronoun “a” used. I do note this time that the pronoun “the” is used in the subtitle, meaning the insurrection or rebellion refers to one specific event, limited to a period whose people are no longer with us, making it no longer applicable. Note: I never considered J6 anything but a PsyOp/riot.
This is a very educating article which I appreciate, but this sentence: “It is absolutely certain that if Trump were disqualified by some person or institution dominated by Democrats, and if the controversy were not resolved by the Supreme Court, there would be a constitutional crisis.” sickened me.......we are living in a Constitutional Crisis where the gulag BorgDems are doing anything but following the Constitution.....Really, Mr. Dershowitz?.......where is the constitution being followed....where?.......every case against Trump has been unconstitutional and a crisis but we are a communist country now.....why even bother to quote the Constitution a great Godly document ... seriously....makes me mad......i respect that you are erudite and i respect your knowledge but so much of what once would have been relevant that you share with us is no longer applicable or relevant .........also, I have one question....where in hell does it say in the 14th Amendment that illegal women having their babies here in the USA makes their babies citizens.....nowhere....
An amendment that arose in response to the civil war will now be used to cause another.