If conviction isn't the end game, we may still have recourse to prevent it from running again.

[Lunabell]

In an opinion piece published in The Washington Post, Yale Law School professor Bruce Ackerman and Indiana University law professor Gerard Magliocca argued that members of Congress have another, perhaps easier, path to barring Trump from office.

They pointed to the Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, aimed at preventing people from holding federal office if they are deemed to have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the Constitution.

The professors write that if a majority vote of both houses agree that Trump engaged in an act of “insurrection or rebellion,” then he would be barred from running for the White House again. Only a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress in the future could undo that result.

The sole article of impeachment adopted Wednesday cites that provision of the Constitution and says Trump should be disqualified from holding future office.


https://apnews.com/article/barring-trump-holding-office-again-f477c7ddc7ad0cc91a5fb86d12b007f0

Old article from January, but it still brings me hope.

[Wounded Bear]

1. The way to defeat Trumpism is to seriously pound them in 2022 at the ballot box...

[Kashkakat v.2.0]

6. Yah, that too. Both/and: use tools available against DJT, AND!!!! defeat Trumists in elections

Marginalize and drive this thing back into the fringes, from whence it came. Any means necessary

[lagomorph777]

2. If true, it's a great idea. Some here at DU say a court conviction would be prerequisite.

I think it's worth a shot though!

[OnDoutside]

3. Be careful what you wish for....

[Lunabell]

4. Why?

If a Democrat encouraged a violent insurrection I wouldn't want them running again either. Country before politics.

[OnDoutside]

5. A couple of reasons really.

1. What's to stop a Republican Congress to go after a Democratic President "trumping" up insurrection charges, and then going for this ? This current scum know no depths. Their ecosphere can just make shit up.

2. Getting Trump barred from running again would be a dream come true for a Republican Party that lacks the moral compass to do it themselves. If Trump is barred, they will create a new reality, and whitewash the last 4 years.

3 The ideal for the Democratic Party is that this trial reaches the non Trumper Republicans, to get the truth out. If the Democrats can peel off another couple of percent, along with a strong Biden performance over the next year, they'll be setting themselves up for a strong 22. At the same time, Trump will continue to loom large over the GOP, stopping the next batch of Republican hopefuls from running against him.

[Lunabell]

7. Well, I disagree.

Trump needs his comeuppance once and for all. He needs to be permanently taken out of the equation for his criminal behavior.

[OnDoutside]

8. I know quite a number of people here have that view, but my focus is on

the GOP. Trump is a sideshow and a grifter, but who comes after Trump as head of the GOP ? That's the big worry for me. If Trump isn't barred, he'll grift on the back of running in 24, screwing the GOP. Even if he does run, he will be the best recruiting sergeant for Democrats.

[Grins]

9. Forget impeachment for that.

Impeachment is for getting someone out of office, it is not a real trial.

Regardless of the impeachment outcome, Sedition is still illegal under federal statutes. Trump can still face charges of sedition IN COURT - a real court - if a grand jury says so. All you need is a DoJ to charge him, have a grand jury agree - and he is in a courtroom hoping to stay out of PRISON.

So when do we get a, hopefully, royally pissed-off Merrick Garland in as AG?

[FBaggins]

10. I can't believe that so many otherwise-serious people are pushing this nonsense

Do they really think that the Senate can disqualify a candidate by majority vote?

They had better hope that Republicans fail to pick up the single vote they need to give McConnell that little christmas present.

A Yale law professor actually claiming that the Constitution "explicitly says that 51% majorities suffice to disqualify him"

I guess we can add "explicitly" to "literally" among the words that no longer mean anything.