Read on Twitter
Hmmm....
You might be able to hit a handful with this. But the precedent from e.g the "Crittenden Compromise" is that even flagrantly unconstitutional legislative votes deeply hostile to the union and supportive of rebel causes doesn't count. Gotta actually *be* a rebel. https://twitter.com/JustSchmeltzer/status/1348451182927257601
You might be able to hit a handful with this. But the precedent from e.g the "Crittenden Compromise" is that even flagrantly unconstitutional legislative votes deeply hostile to the union and supportive of rebel causes doesn't count. Gotta actually *be* a rebel. https://twitter.com/JustSchmeltzer/status/1348451182927257601
Copperheads were not constitutionally barred from office by the 14th amendment. Maybe you think they should have been, but they were not, and nobody at the time believed that the 14th banned them from running for office.
The only people that the 14th amendment hit were people who actually served in the government or armed forces of the Confederacy, or directly gave material, war-related aid to them. That's gonna be a high bar to apply in this case.
Some of the rioters themselves were people covered by the the 14th amendment: there was that West Virginia legislature, and also a few police officers in the mix (including one KY state trooper). You could bar that handful from future office or state employment.
But you're not gonna be able to bar people for objecting to the electoral college process. Many Democrats objected in 2000, 2004, and 2016. Here's Ohio Democrats objecting after the 2004 election, so not one that has a major "steal" narrative: https://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/electoral.vote.1718/
Nor are you gonna be able to to get somebody for incitation for phrases like "march on Washington" or "come to Washington" or even "march to the Capitol." It's trivially easy to find thousands of instances of pols on both side calling for their supporters to march!
To get a Congressman or Senator, you'd almost certainly have to show *active* collaboration in planning or in the events themselves. To the best of my knowledge, there's no evidence of that yet. *Sympathy* for the insurrectionists is not what 14A is covering.
You can find that sympathy unpatriotic or immoral. I agree.
But it is not what the 14th amendment is talking about, and using the 14th amendment in such a way would be a heinous abuse of it opening the door for a terrible cycle of recriminations.
But it is not what the 14th amendment is talking about, and using the 14th amendment in such a way would be a heinous abuse of it opening the door for a terrible cycle of recriminations.
Getting *Trump* on the 14th amendment is probably easier than getting Senators/Congressmen, since Trump is in the executive and may have actually had decisionmaking powers that are documented somewhere. https://twitter.com/SombraAla/status/1348839254277955587
If you can show that Trump knowingly prevented suitable security provision for Congress and thwarted a response to the mob he provoked, especially if you had eyewitnesses from inside the WH to that effect, maybe you get him on that.
As I said. Gonna be hard to invoke the 14th amendment based on electoral college objections. https://twitter.com/meh130/status/1348839858907840513
