DiscussMormonism.com

Now here's something you don't see every day. In fact, none of us have seen it since it hasn't happened since the 1860s. A public official has been removed from office under Section 3 of the 14th amendment based on his involvement in the January 6, insurrection. For folks who don't have the 14th amendment committed to memory or tattooed on their chest, Section 3 says:

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, 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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The person removed from office was a county commissioner in New Mexico.

The case was tried to a judge -- what's known as a "bench trial." In a jury trial, the jury renders a verdict. In a bench trial, the judge issues findings of fact and conclusions of law. Here's a link to the findings and conclusions in the New Mexico case:https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-co ... riffin.pdf

In the Court Order, it specifically calls the January 6th attack on the Capitol an "...'insurrection' against the Constitution..."

Is this the first time a court has ruled that what happened on January 6th was an "insurrection"? Just curious if there is any additional significance of this ruling (not that the first use of the Amendment in a century and a half isn't significant).

I'd call this a hopeful development.

Everyone and their dog against a pro se. Too bad there wasn't counsel representing him. I'd like to have seen some arguments made in his defense by competent counsel. Tribe and Chemerinsky? Those two are some pretty big con law profs. Fish in barrel meet gun.

Dr Exiled wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 06, 2022 9:22 pm

Everyone and their dog against a pro se. Too bad there wasn't counsel representing him. I'd like to have seen some arguments made in his defense by competent counsel. Tribe and Chemerinsky? Those two are some pretty big con law profs. Fish in barrel meet gun.

I suspect that was a deliberate choice by the defendant, who was the head of "Cowboys for Trump." I think that any number of conservative organizations or firms would have taken this on pro bono or paid for a qualified counsel. If he appeals, I'm pretty sure he'll have some bigger guns and some hefty amicus briefs on his side. That's a ton of amicus firepower for a state trial court case.

Doctor Steuss wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 06, 2022 8:44 pm

In the Court Order, it specifically calls the January 6th attack on the Capitol an "...'insurrection' against the Constitution..."

Is this the first time a court has ruled that what happened on January 6th was an "insurrection"? Just curious if there is any additional significance of this ruling (not that the first use of the Amendment in a century and a half isn't significant).

The most serious charge I'm aware of to date is "seditious conspiracy," which has been charged against some Oath Keepers. Here's the text of the statute:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

No one has been charged to date under the Insurrection or Rebellion statute, which says:

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 fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

I don't think the judge calling January 6 an insurrection has any legal ramifications beyond the case he heard. If anyone in the future is tried for insurrection, the issue won't be whether what happened January 6 was an insurrection, but whether the defendant was engaged in insurrection.