Introducing the Amnesty Bill is all that has to be done. It presupposes that Trump is ineligible, something that the Court itself accepts because without his guilt, there is no Trump v Anderson decision. They’d just say he’s not an officer or he’s not guilty, and moot the question.
Like, I am not a lawyer but “Congress has the right to exercise its Section 3 authority whenever and usually does so after the election” seems pretty straightforward to me!
This is not correct. The key holding is sec II A of the decision that explicitly state that congress must give force to the sec 3 disqualification using the section 5 power to pass a relevant statute.
Congress could do so with the amnesty act itself by claiming its majoritarian impeachment vote (232-197 in the House and 57-43 in the Senate) and the refusal of any court to accept the argument of his innocence allows Congress to take action. As the Court itself says, this is a post election norm.
That was my big beef for the entire election! When Trump applied to run for president / whoever the clerk is that accepts those applications - should have looked at it and said:
“NO! You may not run again.”
But hey - if we can stop him from being sworn in - that’d do just fine!
I know @repraskin.bsky.social has talked about this, is there movement for this to take place? How will Trump be established as an insurrectionist? Will they need a trial?
There has already been a trial: his impeachment. While it did not meet the 2/3 vote necessary for removal from office, the 57-43 vote should be enough to affirm that Trump committed an insurrection.
SCOTUS should rule on it, I think they need more, because SCOTUS will say any Congress can vote that POTUS is an insurrectionist. I would like to see SCOTUS forced to rule on: is Trump an insurrectionist and did he go against the oath he swore. If they say "no" then oaths are useless.
Comments
1. What's the mechanism that triggers this, and who pushes the button to activate it?
2. This means Vance is sworn in on day 1. Just so we're clear.
3. If this goes to court, it has to be set up right procedurally. Who has standing, for starters?
I don't love the idea of a President Vance, but that ship has sailed, and the Constitution should mean something.
“NO! You may not run again.”
But hey - if we can stop him from being sworn in - that’d do just fine!