Does the 14th amendment disqualify Trump from office?

This is a funny asterisk or footnote, but it's also a bigger issue. Did Trump, like the civil war secessionists, commit an insurrection against the US government? We could actually have an extended argument over whether his actions leading up to and on Jan. 6 constituted an insurrection. In my view, it was an attempt at a coup with various laws broken. It's interesting that we haven't had to consider this question with other candidates. 

So here it is, 14th amendment Section 3: 

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.

There have been all kinds of arguments that this doesn't apply to the presidency. Also that isn't not enforceable, or only enforceable by the Supreme Court. 

These are valid questions and there aren't loads of good answers because there isn't much case law on this. We really haven't had a lot of insurrections where we had to worry about barring the participants from office. 

One thing that's at issue is how this provision is enforced since no enforcement mechanism is listed. I tried to find out about the enforcement and found very little. The most detailed is about a potential senator from NC named Zebulon Vance. He had been a representative, then joined the secessionists and was selected as senator after the war. He was barred per the 14th amendment and didn't try to serve, and eventually NC found a different candidate who passed per the 14th amendment. 

It appears that officials had to present credentials, which could be rejected. After the Civil War, Congress refused to seat many senators and representatives from southern states. Pres. Johnson complained about this, and records show rejection of a GA senator.

Now the Colorado Supreme Court has blocked Trump from the primary there on the grounds of the 14th amendment Section 3. So this is strange, unprecedented for a candidate for president, but it is somewhat in keeping with a strict constructionist reading of the amendment. 

Per the amendment, it applies to anyone who 1) "having taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, then 2) "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same." For those, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, ... or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States..." 

There's no requirement of a trial to determine it, so it's hard to say that Colorado isn't within its rights to bar him. Well, such interesting times we live in. 

Image: Redbubble

Dangerous pregnancy? Texas says 'Too bad.'

I followed a series of stories from Texas because I care about freedom and bodily autonomy, and I wondered whether Texas would be compassionate or act to form. 

It starts with a lawyer in the attorney general's office writing that Texas isn't to blame if women aren't getting life-saving abortions. Nooooo, it's those terrible cowardly doctors who refuse to risk their freedom and licenses to perform perfectly legal abortions. The lawyer, a woman, suggests that women should be looking at suing doctors, not the state. 

There's a tiny bit of superficial logic to this. Possibly the doctors are being cowards. Possibly the state wouldn't consider trying to prosecute them for necessary abortions. Texas hasn't jailed any doctors yet for providing emergency abortions. So it's is possible that doctors are just being too nervous. 

More likely, though, is that Texas AG office is lying, trying to throw the blame elsewhere, and providing a talking point to supporters of the strict law. A woman who is 20 weeks pregnant, whose baby has a severe and deadly chromosomal defect, filed suit to get permission for an abortion in Texas. She is already suffering serious side effects. A judge granted her permission for an abortion, with the state arguing against it. What! I thought they supported necessary abortions for the health and life of the mother. Oh, wait, that was just window dressing. The state government doesn't actually support necessary abortions. 

The state appealed, got a ruling to stay the decision. And the AG showed how much they support women in this situation by threatening hospitals and doctors and reminding them that of the penalties for breaking the Texas abortion law. 

So the woman decided she had to leave the state to get her necessary abortion. In the meantime, the Supreme Court of Texas doubled down on the lie that doctors have all the discretion they need. 

So there it is. Texas doesn't really care how dangerous your pregnancy is. Enforcing the laws on those horrid doctors, women, and anyone else is more important. 

Image: Trisomy 18 Foundation

Extras. There's pushback in many states against the stricter abortion laws. Conservatives have a set of tactics to stymie pro-choice referenda, etc. 

Update 3/25/24. Anti-choice doctors have challenged the legality of the abortion pill. It's not as though it hasn't been heavily used in the past 20+ years. Due to their ideals, they challenge it on false pretenses because it does work well. Here's scuttlebutt about their lawsuit. 

Update 4/26/24. A young writer for a conservative magazine isn't overly concerned about citizens' rights to travel--when it's travel for abortions. She's all for states being intrusive in those cases. Chain them up! Freedom isn't for pregnant women and girls!