re: Wednesday or other SCOTUS experts, is this a trap?

Right, but would there be any real harm in waiting a little while to see who else tries this ( keeping off the ballots) just have the Republicans go the caucus route and then get a review and ruling?

quote:

---

Because POTUS is unequivocally NOT an “officer of the United States” in a constitutional context. Officers of the United States, generally speaking, are federal executive appointees.

---

Perhaps the authors of Section 3 forgot their magic decoder rings that day?

Look, I understand the "Officer of the United States" typically does not include the President, even tjough the Presidency is repeatedly called an "office" in Article 2, and one who occupies an office is usually called an "officer". I think SCOTUS will rule that section 3 does not apply to someone who has only been President and not held any other political office.

I'm just saying the legislative history and purpose of Section 3 cause me to believe a President was intended to be covered.

I don't know why you want to pick a fight over my personal belief, when I also believe SCOTUS will rule differently.

quote:

---

It would be weird if that was his answer since that is also who determines the clause's applicability to the President, and he is already claiming that the court will ignore "that," whatever "that" is.

---

"That" was the legislative history of Section 3. And I didn't mean to suggest anything nefarious on the part of the Court. I just don't think SCOTUS will give the legislative history enough weight to overcome the written language.

To your other question of who makes the determination of whether someone engaged in insurrection, I suppose it is whatever court has jurisdiction.

The CO court has accepted the view of Bauer & Paulsen that Section 3 is self-executing, just like the 13th and 15th Amendments are self-executing. This means the SOS could have, on her own, just decided to keep Trump off the ballot. But of course she would get sued, moving the issue to court.

BTW, it's not "weird" that I think SCOTUS would rule on this. Section 3 applies to a large category of people should they engage in insurrection. Just probably not a President who never held any other political office.

Back to this "self-executing" theory...I'm not at all comfortable with it. If Section 3 were self-executing, then why did Congress write enabling legislation for it in the Enforcement Act of 1870?

The main purpose of the Enforcement Act was to protect the right of black citizens to vote. However, section 14 of that act enabled federal prosecutors to remove people from office who were violating Section 3. It was a civil action, and started with the accused having to explain why they should be allowed to hold office. Section 15 made it a crime for someone to run for office with knowledge they were violating Section 3.

Sections 14 and 15 were repealed in 1948.

So I'm not sure if Section 3 is self-executing, but I'm still convinced it does not require a criminal conviction.

Long winded, but my answer was, The Courts!!