Farley on Nostr: Jimmy Dore’s argument about using the 14th Amendment to disqualify Trump from ...

https://youtu.be/ucf2EWJnORg?si=X5nPdmjCVmeoRnIl
Jimmy Dore’s argument about using the 14th Amendment to disqualify Trump from running again does tap into a contentious legal area. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was designed to prevent those who participated in "insurrection or rebellion" against the U.S. from holding office. However, applying this amendment to Trump would likely face a substantial legal challenge due to several key factors:

1. **Ambiguity in Application**: While Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was initially aimed at those who actively engaged in or supported the Confederacy after the Civil War, its language lacks clarity for modern contexts. Trump’s impeachment acquittal and the lack of a criminal conviction for insurrection complicate the narrative of him directly participating in "rebellion." Courts would need to interpret whether his actions and rhetoric genuinely meet this standard, making it an untested legal precedent.

2. **Selective Enforcement**: One of the strongest defenses Trump could leverage is pointing out that, if the 14th Amendment is applied to him, the same standard could theoretically apply to any public official who has compromised constitutional principles, including presidents who endorsed counterfeiting practices or misused executive power. Trump’s defense could argue that those who supported wars, surveillance expansions, and, notably, unchecked government spending arguably violated the Constitution and should face similar scrutiny. The argument here would be that enforcing the 14th Amendment selectively contradicts principles of equal justice and accountability.

3. **Originalist Constitutional Argument**: Defenders of Trump could use a more originalist interpretation of the 14th Amendment, arguing that its framers intended it for individuals who engaged in actual warfare or armed rebellion against the United States, which is markedly different from Trump’s case. They could claim that applying the amendment in this way would stretch its original purpose, turning it into a political tool rather than a measure of legal accountability.

4. **Broader Constitutional Violations by Public Officials**: The issue of monetary counterfeiting could be a powerful argument if tied to the Constitution’s Article I, Section 8, which grants Congress the sole power to coin money. Decades of monetary expansion, often perceived as "counterfeiting" by critics of the Federal Reserve, have created systemic instability. Trump’s supporters could argue that using fiat money without clear public consent violates the spirit of the Constitution’s financial provisions. Additionally, past actions such as mass surveillance and undeclared wars could be cited to highlight that many current officials have potentially disregarded constitutional mandates—far more egregiously, Trump could argue, than anything he’s accused of regarding insurrection.

5. **Congressional Vote Requirement**: The 14th Amendment allows Congress to "remove such disability" by a two-thirds vote in each House. Even if courts were to interpret the amendment against Trump, Congress could vote to lift this restriction, potentially leading to heated debates within the legislative branch. If Trump could garner sufficient public or political support, he might leverage a vote in Congress to ensure he remains eligible to run.

6. **Public Support as a Backing Argument**: Trump could further argue that the primary accountability mechanism should rest with the American people, not legal maneuvers. If voters wish to re-elect him despite any controversy, this reflects a democratic choice that shouldn't be obstructed by selective legal interpretations.

Trump’s legal team could argue that if the Constitution's violations are ignored in certain contexts (like financial mismanagement or unauthorized wars), then selectively applying the 14th Amendment in his case would be an unjust political weaponization. The selective enforcement would appear hypocritical if only focused on him, especially when considering other officials' actions that run counter to constitutional principles.