Am I right is understanding that the wording in question doesn't require
a conviction in a court. And that being the case was the express
intention of the framers who would have stated otherwise had they meant
so ?

(If I were to do a "today I learned" it would be that each US state can
decide who goes on the presidential ballot independently)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Somehow I missed this message. It is a few days old. Sorry

On 9/11/2023 1:23 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:

Am I right is understanding that the wording in question doesn't require
a conviction in a court. And that being the case was the express
intention of the framers who would have stated otherwise had they meant
so ?

(If I were to do a "today I learned" it would be that each US state can decide who goes on the presidential ballot independently)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

Am I right is understanding that the wording in question doesn't
require a conviction in a court. And that being the case was the
express intention of the framers who would have stated otherwise
had they meant so ?

The terms of the Amendment don't require a conviction or even a court determination. But this issue has not been determine by a court
because this precise situation has never happened before.

(If I were to do a "today I learned" it would be that each US
state can decide who goes on the presidential ballot
independently)

Exactly what states can and cannot do in this regard also has not been determined.


--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Jethro_uk" wrote in message news:uclkmr$g7da$12@dont-email.me...

Am I right is understanding that the wording in question doesn't require
a conviction in a court. And that being the case was the express
intention of the framers who would have stated otherwise had they meant
so ?

(If I were to do a "today I learned" it would be that each US state can >decide who goes on the presidential ballot independently)

Yes, the wording does not require a conviction.

It wasn't the framers per se that wrote the amendment - it was actually
written and passed after the end of the US Civil war during Reconstruction.
My understanding is that the reason no conviction was required was that the amendment was intended to keep people who had served in the Confederacy (who might not ever have ben convicted of any crime) from holding office.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Jethro_uk" wrote in message news:uclkmr$g7da$12@dont-email.me...

Am I right is understanding that the wording in question doesn't require
a conviction in a court. And that being the case was the express
intention of the framers who would have stated otherwise had they meant
so ?

(If I were to do a "today I learned" it would be that each US state can >decide who goes on the presidential ballot independently)

Yes, the wording does not require a conviction.

It wasn't the framers per se that wrote the amendment - it was actually
written and passed after the end of the US Civil war during Reconstruction.
My understanding is that the reason no conviction was required was that the amendment was intended to keep people who had served in the Confederacy (who might not ever have ben convicted of any crime) from holding office.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

A few weeks ago Northwestern University Law Professor Steven Calabresi agreed with law professors Baude and Paulsen that Trump must not appear on ballots, due to the 14th Amendment, Section 3.

Last week Calabresi reversed his position. Calabresi says he did this because he now believes Trump is not an "officer of the United States." Calabresi says an "officer of the United States" refers only to elected officials. Other law professors'
research persuaded Calabresi of this. As interested see https://reason.com/volokh/2023/09/16/steve-calabresi-donald-trump-should-be-on-the-ballot-and-should-lose/

I think this gives any Supreme Court Justice (on both sides of the aisle) a lot of good ground to //reject// disqualification of Trump.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)