Raskin: Trump Is Disqualified from Presidency Because He ‘Participated in Insurrection’

[mystery-ak]

Raskin: Trump Is Disqualified from Presidency Because He ‘Participated in Insurrection’

Pam Keyb 31 Oct 2023

Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD) said Tuesday on MSNBC’s”The ReidOut” that the Constitution disqualified former President Donald Trump from running for president or being seated in the office because he “participated in insurrection.”

Raskin said, “The hard question is not should the courts end up deciding because the courts will have to decide this because it’s a Constitutional question. The hard part is, did he engage in insurrection or rebellion? That’s the hard part for some people. Is incitement to insurrection participating in insurrection? The House of Representatives already impeached him for inciting insurrection. 57 of 100 senators voted to determine that he did engage in incitement to insurrection, so you have robust bipartisan, bicameral majorities defining that as a legislative fact.”

He added, “But I think the alternative argument will be no, you need a criminal conviction first. It’s not enough to show that it happened. And you know, against that, I would simply say, the language of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says that you can’t run for office if you have sworn an oath to the Constitution, but then you participated in insurrection rebellion. It doesn’t say if you have been convicted of insurrection or rebellion. But I think that that will become really the heart of the legal argument.”

more
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2023/10/31/raskin-trump-is-disqualified-from-presidency-because-he-participated-in-insurrection/

[The_Reader_David]

Were that the case, surely Trump and those who invaded the Capitol on his behalf would have been charged with insurrection.  None have been. 

And before the constitutional bar on Federal office for insurrectionists would apply, Trump would not only need to be charged, but also convicted.

[DefiantMassRINO]

Trump hasn't been convicted of buptkus.

Until the Federal Government convicts Trump of a crime in violation of the 14th Amendment, the People have the right and responsbility for whose name appears on ballots.

Dictatorship by judiciary is still dictatorship.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Well, he does say this:

He added, “But I think the alternative argument will be no, you need a criminal conviction first. It’s not enough to show that it happened. And you know, against that, I would simply say, the language of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says that you can’t run for office if you have sworn an oath to the Constitution, but then you participated in insurrection rebellion. It doesn’t say if you have been convicted of insurrection or rebellion. But I think that that will become really the heart of the legal argument.”

I don't think his argument that a Senate vote that fell short of what was needed for a conviction is sufficient to show that there was an actual insurrection.  Absent that, I think you need a conviction.  Though again, there's a good legal argument that the 14th's disqualification provision applies to either the acts of a President, or to someone running for President.