Explaining Section 3 of the 14th Amendment

Former President Donald Trump is not eligible to appear on Colorado’s primary ballot based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, according to the Colorado Supreme Court. NBC News’ Noah Pransky details what the amendment says and how the case came about. 

Connect with NBC News Online!

#Colorado #Trump #14thAmendment

[ronfarrell]

Apparently the rules don't apply to certain people.

[mrsmagoo]

The presidency is indeed an EXECUTIVE OFFICER according to the U.S. Constitution. Use of the word "officer" in the 14th Amendment Section 3 comes from a Constitutional Article that predates and is directly related to the the 14th Amendment: Article VI, Clause 3 "Oaths of Office" which states:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, AND ALL EXECUTIVE and judicial OFFICERS, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

[robertlelis]

It doesn't have to mention any specific office...or officer...it is straight forward in its wording.

[DVOID]

It doesn't mention the Presidency, but it intentionally says ANY OFFICE, obviously including the Presidency, the highest office.

[redtag]

The creators of the constitution could hardly even visualise an event such as we have here now. However it certainly applies in the current situation. If this person is given opportunity to rule the most powerful country in the world, the whole world will suffer as a result.

[CadDrafting]

Fourteenth Amendment:
Equal Protection and Other Rights
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress
or elector of President (TRUMP) 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 (CLARENCE THOMAS),
to support the Constitution of the United States,
shall have engaged in INSSURRECTION or rebellion against the same,
or GIVEN AID or comfort to the ENEEMIES (GOP PARTY) thereof.
But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House,
remove such disability.
(DISQUALIFICATION IS AUTOMATIC)
states CAN BAN TRUMP ! ! !

[GodFamilyUSA]

Just like they're making a decision about Trump they were elected in and how would they have felt if someone didn't like something they said or did and decided no we're not going to

[tllnc]

Rooting for Kamala not to certify the election based on this amemdment.

[lowboyyy]

"who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States"
this is whats wrong with this country, low information voters

[johnsnow]

would be nice if they explained section 5 of the 14th and the 10th as it was ratified on dec 15th 1791.
Section 5 of the 14th amendment's enforcement clause and the 10th amendment is enough for the supreme court to throw out this ruling.
10th amendment (as written) - “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” ( This says powers prohibited to the states, or powers delegated to the federal government specifically cannot be exercised by the state.)
14th sec 5 - "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." (This delegates the power to the federal government to enact the 14th)
All this in quotation is as it is written in the constitution, just look it up in the library of congress.
But some want to read the parts that favor what they want and not the constitution as a whole.

[stevie]

Not only am I concerned with the imprecise wording, but I don’t like that it mentions the clause regarding someone whom was previously in office. One should not have to previously be in office to be disqualified, if that person has shown bad intention. Also, how are we even debating whether Trump or his goons are disqualified? It is literally illegal for Trump to be sworn in and this is a tremendous disgrace. Don’t even get me started on the fact the current Republican ARE THE FORMER CONFEDERATES! Like, seriously this country is totally corrupt! All these little gray areas are simply there to allow space for white bigotry to prevail.

[Leaveblank]

What about the 2/3 congress vote to lift the disability?

[dougphillips]

"No person shall ... hold any office ..." There are no "..." in the Amendment. The words are important and state who cannot hold specific positions in our government. In Summary, if you were a member of US Congress or State Congress or held an appointed position in the executive or judicial branch of a State government and you took an oath to the Constitution and engaged in an insurrection Then you cannot hold a position in the US Congress, the electoral college or be appointed to any office.

[jitchem]

He was a candidate dor president election and he is a normal citizen at the time of crime. So we should fight to see him disqualified from holding the president post

[jaymzgaetz]

Nothing was done and nothing will be because politician is one of the few jobs that you can fail at and still have a job.

[TheGothicdolphin]

For Dummies [section 3]–correct interpretation is to replace the word 'disqualified' (not used in section 3) with 'disabled' i.e. NOT ABLE TO. Therefore, any person(s) 'DISABLED' under S3 may, by Congress, have said 'DISABILITY' QUALIFICATION.

[chazzkramer]

Yeah... NBC is a trusted source to get things right! 😂

[KeithVandenheuvel]

❤ It's a relevant after the election. American people had voted an elected official and to united states as president. The government would be overruling the american people. They need to grant trump a pardon. Is stop interfering with the election. Is obstructing a president from his duties. It would be a one sided government if they did this. They are saying that they are overling the people's vote.

[libertatem_aut_mori_conatur]

Thats not correct. It has been used dozens of times im the 1900s

[KeithVandenheuvel]

❤ It's a relevant after the people had voted trump as president of the united states. They should.
Wait until after his term and not be dictators of their President. They are overruling the people's vote of america.❤❤❤❤❤❤