Rate	Price	Duration
1 Year	$99.00	for 365 days
1 Month	$20.00	for 30 days
1 Week	$8.25	for 7 days

Rate	Price	Duration
1 Year	$60.00	for 365 days
1 Month	$12.00	for 30 days
1 Week	$5.00	for 7 days

Rate	Price	Duration
Home Delivery - Year	$120.00	for 365 days
Mail Delivery - Year	$480.00	for 365 days

Biden should not allow Trump to become president

Dec 4, 2024
Dec 4, 2024 Updated Apr 14, 2025
12

Editor,

The 14th Amendment, Section 3, of our U.S. Constitution includes the text (extracted here)

(12) comments

Scrabjerry Dec 27, 2024 12:14am

There's a very similar argument to my own - drawing upon the 14th Amendment - saying that Trump must be denied office - but putting the burden on the Congress to do so. It's by Evan A. Davis and David M Schulte in The HIll, dated 12/26/24 - titled "Opinion - Congress has the power to block Trump from taking office, but lawmakers must act now." Evan Davis was editor in chief of the Columbia Law Review and David Schulte was editor in chief of the Yale Law Journal.

Not So Common Dec 5, 2024 7:31am

CrabJerry - Did any of this happen? It's up to congress not a Colorado Court, keep digging..

The U.S. Constitution does not define insurrection or rebellion. Article 1, Section 8, clause 15, of the U.S. Constitution does empower Congress to call forth the militia “to suppress Insurrection.” It seems to follow that Congress has the authority to define insurrection for that purpose, which it has arguably done through enactment of the Insurrection Act. Part of that Act authorizes the President to call up the militia and armed forces in the event of “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States [that] make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings. . . .” [. . .] Another part of the Insurrection Act, enacted approximately three years after the Fourteenth Amendment [. . .], authorizes the use of armed forces in cases where insurrectionists “oppose[] or obstruct[] the execution of the laws of the United States or impede[] the course of justice under those laws.”

Scrabjerry Dec 5, 2024 10:06am

The 250 word limitation forced me to omit that I would expect this action to be challenged, and that the Supreme Court would weigh in. We'd all get a better understanding of what Presidential "official acts" include, and what role a President (as opposed to Congress) should have in enforcing that Constitutional provision. The Amendment already identifies a role for Congress as the governmental branch authorized to override (somebody's) the determination of unfitness due to insurrection. The 14th Amendment, as written, expected an action like I propose to engender conflicting views. Why not let this play out -- and learn what Section 3 is supposed to mean? Otherwise, we're saddled with more meaningless and/or unenforceable text (a la the Emoluments Clause) - and what kind of guiding document does the Constitution then become?

edkahl Dec 4, 2024 11:19am

Wow - for guy that thinks Trump's an insurrectionist, your idea sure tops it. As I recall Trump's speech on the Mall asked people to protest peacefully and the only person killed was a woman shot in the back. The real insurrection was the Antifa riots that killed 21 people and occupied federal buildings nation wide for 4 months as Democrat lawmaker remain mostly silent.

Terence Y Dec 4, 2024 8:27am

Hey, Mr. Lerman, look over there! There’s a straw. Wait, there’s another one. And another one. Grab onto as many as you’d like to push your insurrection hoax. It won’t change the fact that the treasonous Biden/Harris nightmare is almost over. A nightmare, it appears, you’d like to continue. Please stop hating Trump more than you love America.

Scrabjerry Dec 4, 2024 3:06pm

https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/2023/23sa300.html explains why UNDER THE LAW (not colored by political views, as you seem intent upon being), Trump engaged in insurrection and is not eligible to hold the office of President. I understand why you think otherwise - but you don't seem to understand why I can think it is the case, other than to accuse me of reaching for straws. I simply read legal decisions - and believe in applying the law.

Not So Common Dec 4, 2024 3:50pm

Donald Trump has never been charged, tried or convicted of an insurrection. Consequently, as my Cousin Vinny would say, "your theory holds no water." Now picture Vinny walking the courtroom with Mona Lisa (Marisa Tomei) smiling ear to ear and Vinny asking, does Scrabjerry's claim hold water?, "No says Mona Lisa, Scrabjerry's claim holds no water, he or she is a political hack." I rest my case....

Scrabjerry Dec 4, 2024 7:01pm

Please point me to the part of the Amendment that says 'Convicted'. He was found in a court of law - the highest in the state of Colorado - to be guilty of insurrection. That's my 'bucket of water'

MichKosk Dec 5, 2024 7:39am

Sounds like the extent of Jerry's legal education may actually be watching "My Cousin Vinny". Normally I'm not into credentialism but hey Jerry, please attend law school and then get back to me on your theory. Actually just attend one class of Criminal Law in which you will learn that the term "found guilty" is used only in criminal, not civil courts. But thanks for the laughs, this thread is hilarious.

Terence Y Dec 5, 2024 8:43am

Community Notes:

1. What Scrabjerry Lerman conveniently leaves out is that the Supreme Court decided 9-0 that Colorado is without authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against presidential candidates. It is noted that far left SC judges ruled against Colorado’s trumped up charges in their attempt at election interference.

2. As Not So Common reminds us, “Donald Trump has never been charged, tried or convicted of an insurrection.” This was also pointed out by Justice Kavanaugh during oral arguments.

3. During oral arguments, Justice Thomas asked for specific examples of states disqualifying national candidates. No examples were provided. Perhaps Mr. Lerman can provide an example.

4. If anyone is interested, they can access Supreme Court decisions and read up on how Colorado’s argument didn’t hold up, resulting in a unanimous decision against them. Coincidentally, Mr. Lerman, here’s your example of “not colored by political views.”

Mr. Lerman, I understand why you think your case has merit but as I said earlier, you’re grasping at straws and as Not So Common described, your theory holds no water. You’re cherry-picking an example brought on by a politically biased effort to interfere in an election. Theoretically, if you found a Podunk Judge with an extreme left bias who convicted Trump of insurrection I imagine you’d try making the same argument. Fortunately, there’s a greater power in the Supreme Court which holds that Colorado’s case, and likely everyone else’s, holds no water. Hmm, there’s a theme with Not So Common’s description… and which has merit.

Terence Y Dec 6, 2024 9:08am

Scrabjerry, for further reading, I’d recommend you read the linked analysis for another take by folks who likely know more about constitutional law than you or me (https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S3-2/ALDE_00000070/). Hat tip to Wilfred F for the reference.

Ray Fowler Dec 4, 2024 8:02am

Good morning, Jerry

Do you write for "The Onion"?

Thank you for visiting the Daily Journal.

Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading. To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.

We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.

A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!