Republican strategists are worried that if former President Trump doesn’t secure the GOP’s presidential nomination next year, or if he is kept off the ballot because of his mounting legal problems,…
It doesn’t. I get the appeal, but he is not charged with anything that falls under the clause nor is he likely to be charged with such. Historical and legal precedent requires a finding in law of such violation for the clause to be applicable. It’s wishcasting.
o 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.
Emphasized the bold part because I don’t quite understand why we would want that to even be an option.
See paragraph 3. That might pose a problem for Trump.
It doesn’t. I get the appeal, but he is not charged with anything that falls under the clause nor is he likely to be charged with such. Historical and legal precedent requires a finding in law of such violation for the clause to be applicable. It’s wishcasting.
Emphasized the bold part because I don’t quite understand why we would want that to even be an option.
I imagine the thinking is that if a rebellion has 2/3 support in both houses of Congress, it was probably popular enough to not be disqualifying.