A friend of mine sent me an article about Section 3 of the 14^th Amendment from the Social Science Research Network of a paper that was written by William Baude of the University of Chicago Law School and Michael Stokes Paulsen of St. Thomas School of Law. The paper is called the “Sweep and Force of Section Three”. It really started me looking at the 14^th Amendment and if it applies today. The paper, at times, is a little hard for a novice like me to follow but some of the points it makes really started me thinking.

 We hear people talking about the 14^th Amendment a lot lately but I feel that we should be hearing about it even more. What is important right now is 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 an office, civil of 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 a 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.  That is just one paragraph, but, the one paragraph speaks volumes.

 I am a believer that the Constitution was not written so you had to be a rocket scientist to understand it. I think that I should be able to read it and understand it. Our problem has always been the person that twists the words to make them fit the point that serves their purpose. The 14^th amendment was enacted after the Civil War to deny the Southern participants of the war to hold office. The premises of the Amendment, as I interpret it, was, the same people that broke their Oath of Office didn’t again be elected or participate in the Government and Oath that they betrayed. Makes sense to me. Robert E. Lee who at one time took an oath to defend the Constitution and then broke that oath should never again be able to hold a commission in the Army that he served before or any office for the United States. Jefferson Davis who before the war served in the House of Representative and was also a former Secretary of War. He would have, at multiple times, taken the Oath of Office and sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States of America. He too had broken that Oath. What is important is to decide was their worst crime; the actual Insurrection or was it that they broke their Oath of Office?

 You have heard me state many times that the Oath of Office has just become words that people have to say when they are elected to an Office or take any job that where the Oath is administered. Those words must have real meaning and not just words that have to be said. From our police to our Presidents and everyone in-between they all take an Oath of Office to protect and defend our Constitution. No one forces then to take that pledge or to hold office, they do it voluntarily. When Colin Kaepernick took a knee during the playing of the National Anthem he had that right to take that knee. Vice President Mike Pence who had taken the Oath of Office condemned Kaepernick and left the stadium. I would think that with the taking the Oath of Office Mike Pence had the obligation to defend Kaepernick’s right of silent protest. In defending Kaepernick he would have been defending the Constitution. During the actual Insurrection on January 6^th Pence upheld his Oath of Office and deserves to be commended and remembered for it. Those that defended the insurrectionist or encouraged the Insurrections by words or inactions should, in my opinion, be held accountable to for breaking their oath of office.

The wording of Section 3 of the 14^th Amendment as it is pointed out in the paper written by Baude and Stokes is interesting. It states that “No person shall be”. It does not mention convicted in the entire section. To me it says that just committing the act is what kicks in the 14^th Amendment not being convicted of it. I will point out that the Insurrection and everything that was attached to it, like the fake electors, and the lies to protect the insurrectionists and its planners is not the same as let’s say a Black Lives’ Matters protester. The BLM protests were about promoting change in the Government and demanding equal treatment by the Government that is actually guaranteed by the Constitution. There is no breaking of their Oath by the defenders of the BLM protesters. That cannot be said the same about the people that tried to do everything possible to install a person that was not elected President into the White House. That is in my opinion the breaking of their Oath of Office. Breaking your Oath of Office is not part of Free Speech. It looks like the 14^th Amendment supersedes free speech because the act, of insurrection, is an attack on the very document that guarantees that free speech. If you fight to burn that document the rights that document gives you cannot be used as a defense.

 Another thing I got out of reading the paper is that it is self-enacting which to me means it should automatically happen and does not take a Judge or Congress to enact it. It should be their responsibility of all that are in charge of an election to invoke the Section 3 of the 14^th Amendment. Robert E Lee and Jefferson Davis were not declared ineligible by the Courts, the 14^th amendment did that. To me it appears that every person that participated or aided in the conspiracy to install Trump into the White House are automatically ineligible to be on a ballot. After they are denied they then can challenge it in Courts. We are expecting the Courts to declare Trump and others ineligible when it should actually be the States and individual counties that should be doing it, and then the courts can decide afterwards.

 I have read an article from CNN written by David Orentlicher who is the Judge Jack and Lulu Lehmann Professor (whatever those are) at William S. Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. He argues that the 14 Amendment is written in general terms and it could be applied to insurrections of rebellions other than the Civil War. Even though he believes that Trump should never hold office again he believes that applying Section 3 of the 14^th Amendment  to Trump goes too far. He mentions CREW and how they are suing to have Trump removed from the ballet. I think that he misses the point. I think the what is the most important part is not the act of violence and whether someone thinks it is an insurrection or not. It is the fact he violated his Oath of Office first by demanding Pence to violate his oath and then doing nothing to stop the assault of our Capitol.  Also by agreeing to the fake electors that would have undermined the Constitution, is in my opinion, is a violating of their Oath of Office. An Insurrection, in my opinion, is more than just the act of violence that occurred on January 6^th 2021. It also appears self-enacting meaning that CREW should not have to sue to have Trump removed from the ballot. It should be the other way around; Trump should have to sue to be on the ballot.

 As I said, I am no lawyer, but then I don’t think that you should have to be a lawyer to try and understand our Constitution. I am going to continue this in another posting but my wife says I have to not make these too long. I am finding the 14^th Amendment to be a very fascinating topic and I am going to continue to research it.