Talk:Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 4

Administrator note

Edits

Frustrated when editors on here constantly reverting edits when I'm trying to add neutral clarity and remove biased content. @Cullen328 @AntiDionysius @Mdaniels5757 Magnus1313 (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus1313, as has already been explained, you must gain consensus for any changes you wish to make if other editors disagree. Instead, you have been trying to force your changes through by edit warring. That is entirely the wrong approach. You need to persuade the editors who object that your changes are an improvement. Cullen328 (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was to add clarity. CO did not "succeed", as clearly stated in the second following line. I clarified that. Is everyone gathering consensus for every edit? No they aren't. Most people add and clarify content. One recent edit was to chance CO to Colorado. Did they get consensus? No. Why are you so opposed to people clarifying content? Magnus1313 (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing CO to Colorado was an obvious improvement. Discussions leading to consensus are required when other interested editors object. Five editors have objected to your changes. The distinction should be obvious. Cullen328 (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One editor has objected. That editor reverted. Not 5.

Are you saying CO succeeded in keeping him off the ballot? Or are they going to include him? Magnus1313 (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history of the article is crystal clear for all to see. You made 14 edits to the article, all of which were reverted by at least five other editors. That's edit warring. As for whether or not Trump's name will be on the Colorado ballot, that is yet to be determined definitively, and will likely be decided by the US Supreme Court. Cullen328 (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus1313, do not remove active threads here. You can do that on your own talk page, not here. Cullen328 (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a "forum". I'm deleting my thread since this doesn't contribute to the improvement of the page. Please delete. Magnus1313 (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnus1313 Once a thread has been responded to, it cannot be unilaterally deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't meet the requirements as stated above in the yellow box. It doesn't contribute to the improvement of this page. Therefore it should be deleted. Magnus1313 (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't you just ban me for contributing an opposing viewpoint. I'm trying to add clarity and neutrality to a biased page. Then you won't have to worry about reading something that doesn't fit your opinion. Magnus1313 (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You will not be blocked unless you violate policies after being warned. I will not block you myself because I am involved with this content dispute. You may think that you are adding neutrality, but you need to convince other interested editors that your proposed changes actually do so. As mentioned previously, there are various forms of Dispute resolution available to you. Cullen328 (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who is disqualified?

The 14th amendment section 3 of the constitution does not mention it being applied to President or Vice President. Stevestv6578 (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The question of whether section 3 of the 14th Amendment applies to the President is actually one of the main questions which the Colorado Supreme Court addressed in its recent ruling barring Trump from being placed on its presidential primary ballot. A lower court previously held that Trump "had engaged in insurrection," but also that section 3 of the 14th Amendment did not apply to the President. The subsequent ruling by Colorado's Supreme Court reversed the latter decision.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states that anyone "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" may not hold office in the United States (among other positions). The most pertinent portion is in bold above - did Trump qualify "as an officer of the United States" when he engaged in insurrection?

The Colorado Supreme Court decided that he did. They cite various public uses of the term "officer" in reference to the presidency (see ¶ 144-152 of the court's decision):

At the time of the nation's founding ("The President of the United States would be an officer elected by the people;" Alexander Hamilton),
Uses contemporary with the time in which the 14th Amendment was drafted (e.g., "chief executive officer of the country;" Congressional Globe, 39th Congress),
Trump's own previous legal filing ("To be sure, the President is an officer.")

Trump's filing goes on to posit that the President is "not an officer of the United States;" a distinction the court disagreed with, citing both a lack of textual evidence for this claim and that most of the other "officers" described in Section 3 are clearly officers "of the United States." — nmael (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The assumption is he engaged in "insurrection" which is blatantly false. If you read the text in his speech, he called for peaceful protests. Never once did he encourage people to "attack" the capitol, like some like to claim. Insurrection also means rebellion against the government. He was the government. He's rebelling against his government? Insurrection has taken on meaning by liberal news outlets, which hold no meaning. Liberals are trying to apply a clause from the constitution to something that has no meaning in this case and is totally made up. Magnus1313 (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very good question in which SCOTUS to ultimately decide. It would be good to add SCOTUS precedents and not just reasoning in Colorado. SCOTUS held in US v. Mouat (1888) that “officers” are only those individuals who are appointed to positions within the federal government https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/124/303/. This has been reiterated in in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010), in which CJ John Roberts concluded “the people do not vote for ‘Officers of the United States.’” https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/477/ They are presumably appointed under Article II of the Constitution. While Section 3 applies to an “elector for President or Vice President”, it does not specify that it applies to the actual Offices of the President and/or Vice President. 220.233.4.6 (talk) 08:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph 3 of Section 3

Request to clarify last statement of paragraph three under Section 3: “These waivers do not bar Section 3 from being used today.[196]”. Suggested modest edit: “It is not clear that these waivers bar Section 3 from being used today”. Section 3 states “Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability”, and text of Amnesty Act of 1872 is a blanket statement: “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each house concurring therein), that all political disabilities imposed by the third section of the fourteenth article of amendments of the Constitution of the United States are hereby removed from all persons…” The exceptions that follow have been completely removed in the Amnesty Act of 1898. The article cited 196 is inconclusive and does not discuss the Amnesty Acts in depth only a mere assertion that these do not “bar the provision from being applied today”. Thanks. 220.233.4.6 (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source (196) for that statement presents an op-ed as legal fact in which it says basically that a bill of attainder could reimpose the disability; something explicitly prohibited in Article I, Section 9, Clause 3. As previously pointed out the disability has been removed partially by 17-193 and fully by 30-389 (Volume-Chapter). 31.187.2.141 (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citation has been updated recently to footnote 197 (previously 196) to wit: "Weiss, Debra Cassens (January 12, 2021). "Could the 14th Amendment be used to disqualify Trump from office?". ABA Journal. Retrieved February 15, 2021" https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/could-the-14th-amendment-be-used-to-disqualify-trump-from-office 103.133.97.246 (talk) 03:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2024

This edit request to Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add the word "the." In the section "Trump disqualification debate," the last paragraph, beginning "On January 3, 2024..." it states that his attorneys argue that the 14th Amendment "should not apply to presidency because..." Shouldn't it read "the" presidency? 69.73.51.186 (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 07:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]