General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf 'Conspiracy to Conceal' is one of Trump's charges, it could disqualify him from holding office
...two of the laws Trump is suspected of violating in connection to his handling of government documents:
18 USC § 2071, which bars the concealment, removal, or mutilation generally of government records. Conviction on this count carries a maximum penalty of three years and disqualification from holding public office.
18 USC § 1519, which prohibits the destruction, alteration, or falsification of records "with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter" within the jurisdiction of federal agencies or departments. Conviction on this count carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071
live love laugh
(12,995 posts)brer cat
(24,401 posts)Qutzupalotl
(14,230 posts)JohnSJ
(91,942 posts)onenote
(42,374 posts)to the president.
The Constitution specifies that the only way to remove a president is via impeachment. And it sets the requirements for the office and the Courts have been clear that Congress cannot add to those requirements.
bigtree
(85,915 posts)...and a due obligation for our national legislature to move to bar Trump in the case of a conviction on that provision of law.
I think that conviction would buttress an impeachment, and vice versa.
regnaD kciN
(26,035 posts)Ive seen a number of opinions from legal experts that such clauses would likely be found unconstitutional if challenged.
Mme. Defarge
(7,981 posts)let it be so!
herding cats
(19,549 posts)Twist yourselves into pretzels on the ludicrous concept he might win the nomination and then the actual election. Then, they're assuming, he actually would be able to pardon himself.
That is one multi knotted pretzel they're relying on to save them. It's mind boggling nuts.
PortTack
(32,606 posts)The trial would not take place until after the 24 election.
forgotmylogin
(7,496 posts)Sharpie-annotated, or in any way mutilated government papers in a manner that makes them un-secure, he's committed a major crime.
I wonder if he signed his big pointy name on any of the (copies?) of documents he showed or gave to someone.
calimary
(80,693 posts)18 USC § 1519, which prohibits the destruction, alteration, or falsification of records "with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter" within the jurisdiction of federal agencies or departments. Conviction on this count carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071
Celerity
(42,643 posts)DetroitLegalBeagle
(1,904 posts)The Constitution clearly lays out the eligibility to be President and the disqualification of one. A law can't change that.
brooklynite
(93,843 posts)...legal scholars disagree.
And it would factor large when the Senate organizes to act, which they ultimately will in light of those provisions.
But go on about your civics class.
from the Atlantic:
The short answer is that no law exists to stop either possibilityat least not for the crimes he is currently accused of in New York. The same is not exactly true for the crimes he may yet be indicted for relating to his role in the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol. One criminal statute that Special Counsel Jack Smith may use to charge Trump specifically bars offenders from holding future office. But even if he were convicted of that insurrection-related charge, accountability under the law would likely fall at the feet of Republican lawmakersand, barring a profound conversion, they are not going to keep him from the nations highest office.
The original Constitution contains only three criteria for president: citizenship (natural-born U.S. citizen, meaning a citizen at the time of birth), age (at least 35 years old), and residency (at least 14 years in the U.S., not necessarily consecutively and not necessarily immediately preceding ascension to office). Thats it. Beyond that, after declaring ones candidacy and designating a political action committee with the Federal Election Commission, running for president requires getting on the primary ballot in as many states as possible, which means complying with a huge range of state-specific ballot-access requirements and deadlines. If Trump were to then secure his partys nomination via the processes the Republican Party has designed for itself, no federal law would intervene. As The New York Times recently reported, a slew of political candidates have run under similar circumstances, including former Texas Governor Rick Perry, who was under indictment for two felonies when he announced his candidacy for president in 2015. Eugene V. Debs famously ran as the Socialist Party nominee in 1920 from a federal penitentiary in Atlanta. (The winner of that race, President Warren Harding, arranged for Debss release the next year.)
Ratified in 1868, Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment added to the original text that no person shall
hold any office, civil or military, under the United States
who, having previously taken an oath
to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. This postCivil War provision was designed to prevent former Confederates from interfering with the reconstructed federal government. The Constitution contains no definition of what it means to have engaged in insurrection or rebellion, however, and there is no clear enforcement mechanismno federal law on the books, for example, that authorizes a lawsuit to enable competing candidates to keep constitutionally disqualified individuals from running for federal office. The Civil Rights Act of 1870 allowed federal prosecutors to use a writ of quo warrantoa civil demand that challenged a persons right to hold public officebut Congress repealed that provision in 1948.
States could instead rush to amend their ballot requirements to exclude insurrectionists or to challenge Trumps candidacy citing the Fourteenth Amendmentas happened when the House Republican Madison Cawthorn sought reelection in 2022. After a group of voters filed such a challenge with the North Carolina Board of Elections, Cawthorn sued in federal court, citing First Amendment and due-process violations and claiming that the 1872 Amnesty Act, which removed all political disabilities that had been imposed by Section 3 on Confederates, covered him as well. A federal appeals court rejected his argument under the Amnesty Act, but expressed no opinion about whether Representative Cawthorn in fact engaged in insurrection or rebellion or is otherwise qualified to serve in Congress.
In theory, if enough states were to require presidential candidates to affirm that they had not engaged in insurrection or rebellion within the meaning of Section 3 as a precondition to getting on a ballot, other contenders could challenge Trumps qualifications through whatever mechanisms are provided under each states law. But that process would be piecemeal and complicated, with uncertain outcomes, because the scope and meaning of Section 3 have never been definitively litigated.
None of this would keep Trump out of office if he is convicted of any of the state-level crimes for which he has been accused, which have little to do with insurrection or rebellion. But at least one federal crime is different. Smiths grand jury could indict Donald Trump under 28 U.S.C. § 2383, a federal criminal law that prohibits participation in insurrection. It provides: Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto
shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
If Trump were charged and convicted under this law, he could no longer legally hold officethat much is plain. But who would enforce that outcome? Certainly, if he were convicted by next July, when the Republican National Committee will host its convention, the party could refuse to nominate him based on the language of § 2383. That seems unlikely. The alternative would be to ignore the laws express penalty, an easier political path. Once nominated, if Trump were to legitimately win 270 Electoral College votes in November 2024, Republicans in Congress could simply insist that they all be counted on January 6, 2025. Changes to the Electoral Count Act passed in December of last year raised the threshold for objecting to a states slate of electors from a single member from the House and the Senate to 20 percent of the members of each chamber. The law also established that the vice presidents role in the process is purely ministerial. All of this would make it harder to object to Trumps victory. Additionally, the Fourteenth Amendment says that Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability if a candidate was disqualified from holding office for having engaged in an insurrection, as happened with the 1872 Amnesty Act. Arguably, that constitutional language could bolster the argument for setting aside the consequences of a conviction under § 2383.
more: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/04/if-convicted-could-trump-still-be-president/673708/
brooklynite
(93,843 posts)...and is also not going to prevent Trump from serving as President UNLESS he's actually CONVICTED of insurrection.
bigtree
(85,915 posts)...but you're being overly dismissive of the implications of those provisions.
I'll agree that the op isn't legally sound. Bravo to you for pointing that out with such alacrity. Nor does the article, as you say, make any case for disqualification under the statute I posted.
I'll also submit that I believe Congress is the ultimate arbiter of the question of qualification (maybe going through the SC), and that I do not believe the Constitution prevents the legislature from moving to bar Trump if the court finds he's violated statutes that have disqualification provisions. As it's been said, it's not a suicide pact.
Any move to bar Trump would be a combination of politics and law. Indeed, I don't think Congress would have much to stand on in an impeachment proceeding without those provisions.
Someone down the road with actual legal experience will come along and tell us how key those provisions are to any political debate to block Trump from the presidency - either in a court of law, in the legislature, or in the public arena.
Qutzupalotl
(14,230 posts)bigtree
(85,915 posts)...maybe in the next Jack batch.