Quote (IceMage @ Dec 30 2023 12:10pm)
Have there been instances of this section of the 14th amendment being enforced without a conviction of "insurrection/rebellion"?
One argument is that the amendment was passed in the aftermath of the Civil War, and the nation was not willing to prosecute every insurrectionist who fought against the Union, so it wouldn't be expected that it would require someone to be convicted of another statute. The point was to prevent these people from holding office, without requiring the prosecution of hundreds of thousands.
Therefore, Trump doesn't need to be charged or convicted of anything, there just needs to be a determination made as to whether or not he engaged in insurrection/rebellion or aiding those who did. Which he obviously is guilty of.
It's pretty hard to say, because for the most people after the civil war people just understood the meaning. If they could trace you to a confederate government, you weren't getting into federal office. So actually finding case law is difficult since there wasn't much controversy and so there weren't really attempts that I can find.
Goom at least has one instance where one justice who was on the supreme court thinks otherwise, but it isn't a particularly strong case since he was just running the circuit and not writing for the supreme court when he made the opinion.
Actually I just found this article. It seems pretty unambiguous that at the time it was understood the amendment was self-executing, since people were submitting amnesty requests by the thousands instead of putting themselves on the ballots and waiting for challenges. It also lists 6 confederates that were formally banned 4 of which without conviction.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/This post was edited by Thor123422 on Dec 30 2023 12:44pm