Read  this entire page or you might get it wrong what is needed to be done to be legally effective.  But be aware the Whitehouse would rather Trump be on the ballot because he is imploding fast and will beat himself for Biden.

This page is outdated and the info is now in https://gov-shout.com/Trump_for_President.

A new Hybrid PAC is launching to take on the issue at https://sadpac.com

There is a dynamic plan that can save American Democracy - see https://gov-shout.com/Saving_American_Democracy

Where we post notable ridiculous and relevant news worthy YouTube videos and other links is at https://gov-shout.com/Republicans_are_American_Russians

Special Counsel Jack Smith filed his immunity case claim SCOTUS reply brief on April 9, 2024 here and is reviewed by Meidas Touch Attorney Ben Meicelas at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSCj2yVYpGg

Smith’s 66-page brief, answering Trump’s argument to the high court that federal criminal charges against him for seeking to overturn the 2020 presidential election should be dropped because he was president at the time, called Trump’s claim a “radical suggestion” that would upend foundational principles of U.S. democracy.

April 25, 2024, the SCOTUS immunity claim argument.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdDNCDFpBtA with Meidas Touch analysis whine by Ben Meicelas at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Blu7E54wX8I yes it was absurd but Meidas Touch pumps out videos and offers no plan or solution. Ari Melber says "I call Bull" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSk5cK63lbU. Judge Luttig bluntly calls BS on Velshi at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPiFiT3ADz0

On March 4, 2024 the Supreme court ruled Section 3 of the 14th Amendment inaccessible by citizens,  They cite through Section 5 that Congress must legislation and the cite to the Enforcement Act of 1870.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enforcement_Act_of_1870  and which cites to quo warranto.  They say the way to do it would be 18 USC 2383.  The Supreme Court ruling is here however a read of the wiki page and the William and Mary article cited in it at footnote 6, which is found locally here shows the proper manner to prosecute it is already and remains in place through the DC District Federal Court by STILL Quo Warranto with an ex rel action as Chapter 35 of the DC Code provides as enacted by Congress. (See page 187 and then 192 as ro Federal Officers)  Quo Warranto was once a criminal action, and it is now a Civil Action, and that was the change in the Act of 1870.   Mr Hinkley as amicus discusses it and that brief is  here  So what happened was as this page has always stated, it should have been brought as Federal Election Mandamus in a Federal Court - with the specification it is  an ex rel action in the names of the United States after serving notice upon the DOJ to do so.  The Supreme court is stretching here because a civil action can be brought under criminal code and ruled upon as Colorado actually did by "incitement"  Colorado  just screwed up. casting jurisdiction to the Supreme court when it was Congress who was supposed to have jurisdiction all along by the final sentence of Section 3 of the 14th amendment.  Further down Lawrence Tribe describes this is EXACTLY why ther Courts were not to be involved.  The Supreme Court argument is inside out by nine people - against so far four states all agreeing to he was not to be on their ballot again. By Section 3 of the 14th Amendment it would only take 145 Representatives and 34 Senators to over rule the ruling of the Supreme court as an official act of a vote upon the Colorado order by Congress,  It does not appear they want that, as Trump is melting down to his die hard supporters only and may loose some of them in the end and loose his bid to return to power anyway.  So yes, CREW and Free Speech People screwed the pooch and it is not like they were not TOLD repeatedly in emails  they were doing it wrong and ignored the advice.  So maybe like Karen Agnifilo says, Biden should dye his hair and say I am just emulating what Trump is doing - because there is a reason you cannot find Melania by his side in this.  It had might as well be Trump because Nikki Haley would make a terrible misguided President unable to make a decision wishy washy-ing about. flip-flopping like a fish out of water.  Also she too is not a lawyer and knows nothing of the rule of law and it shows.

February 28, 2024 Illinois kicked Trump from the ballot by a Judge ruling here

Why the country is arguing about Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is incredulous.  It is very clear, if you can read English.  It says you are barred or can be removed from office if you rebel against terms defined as Articles in the US Constitution, and this bar it calls a "disability" can only be relieved by a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress once made.  It DOES not say appeals can go on ad nauseum.  It says in fact the opposite - whoever makes the decision - that decision goes to the US Congress for review and vote if the  ruling and reason is correct.  This means not even the SCOTUS has jurisdiction - as how can they if only a 2/3 vote in Congress can relieve the "disability"??

Just listening to the Trump v Anderson 23-719 Section 3 of the 14th amendment oral argument, the truth is Murray  for Anderson / CREW and Stevenson for Colorado Secretary of State screwed this up royally.  Asked repeatedly how Section 3 of the 14th amendment is self executing and supposed to work they had no clue or proper answer.  This will be reversed likely

The founding fathers saw the day when a Donald John Trump would arrive.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxaE4Bea_18&t=360s At this point after the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries in Iowa 100,000 of  700,000 registered Republicans showed up an 50% of them did not vote for Trump.  DeSantis dropped out and similar percentage in New Hampshire did not vote for Trump.  So Trump appears is imploding already and he is unwisely alienating voters already.  See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcT488Brm0Y

Yet the media is the worst - they get some "expert" to say - it goes to the Supreme Court - when they really have no clue what they are reading.   It DOES NOT.   Then people want to make it political - like Trump as the alleged "front runner" matters if he is a traitor to the country,  he has managed to bamboozled people  with his lies to think they should vote for him again.  The Constitution was written to save us from ourselves as apparently a whole lot more people are dim wits that one would like to think.  Of course today it is all about dishonesty and lying so we will see if the SCOTUS does what they should by the Constitution and deny hearing the case, state they have no jurisdiction and transfer it to Congress or if they will fashion a "state craft" order that causes an effect to defeat the rulings citing procedure or format of the rulings.  In essence invalidate the rulings without reversing them stating they do not meet what Section 3 of the 14th Amendment requires.  Sadly that is what happens when one writes a long wordy order.  It was simple - Trump rebelled against the Constitution of the United States trying to thwart Article I Section i Clause one with a fake elector scheme, lying that the election was fraudulently stolen, and inciting a rot to make his point.  But everyone and the media call it an insurrection on January 6th like the riot was the insurrection when it was not according to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment .  It was an insurrection according to 18 USC 2383  but that is where things just get ugly.  Both the rulings are still legally correct however but go the long way around.

Download the PDF full version through https://tinyurl.com/2282tf9c as an example to send to Sec of States '  (still correct but revision coming soon given the Colorado ruling - which is an unconstitutional ruling - see it below and better to use the current cut and paste version nearly all the way at the bottom of this page)
Download the Exhibits only through https://tinyurl.com/3vsu2jpr

Here is the first and only ruling by a Federal Court establishing that Trump engaged in rebellion to the Constitution of the United States.  It is from Federal Judge David O. Carter and it is the Federal public record of all one needs to move a Secretary of state or elections official to recognize Trump is automatically barred from office here

This order above is sufficient to prove a rebellion against the Constitution of the United States to Article II Section I Clause I as Trump's being the clear "disqualifying activity" that activated Section 3 of the 14th amendment.  This conclusively establishes "constitutional ineligibility" by Section 3 of the 14th amendment to be a qualified candidate for the Presidency again.  It is that simple and no conviction is required the Constitutional violation is by the terms of the Constitution itself and the result of a bar to office is final but for the final sentence of Section 3 of the 14th amendment to Congress.  No court and not the Supreme Court can provide any relief to or reverse this as it is self inflicted and thus self executing.

On December 28, 2023 Maine directly removed Trump from the ballot using the procedure and argument on this page that Trump CANNOT  meet any "consent declaration" almost every state requires in some form or another.  Almost any Secretary of State or Elections Official could sua sponte on their motion review the Trump candidacy application and disqualify Trump for the false declaration / affidavit of candidacy.  See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ9_9SKQ1eQ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_dUCPD88Lk and  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNQrUtIkEBI and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3A84xyazqY The Maine Secretary of State ruling is here

December 19, 2023 the Colorado Supreme barred Trump from the ballot.  The 208 page ruling is here  Anyone could use this as Judicial Notice in Requests to bar Trump from there ballots OR take it to a Federal Court in Federal election mandamus.   In reality the SCOTUS has no jurisdiction here by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and we will need to see if they honor the final sentence of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says and cast it to Congress where it belongs by the Constitution itself, so by the US Constitution the Colorado Supreme Court ruling is final

This page if you want to email a link to someone is https://tinyurl.com/4emxhyb6

There is a dynamic plan that can save American Democracy - see https://gov-shout.com/Saving_American_Democracy

Where we post notable ridiculous and relevant news worthy YouTube videos and other links is at https://gov-shout.com/Republicans_are_American_Russians

The Colorado CREW suit failed November 17, 2023 because they argued the January 6, 2021 riot as the insurrection, and the court took an excuse that the President is not an "officer" of the United States.  The ruling says he engaged in insurrection, but the Judge does not say it was "against the Constitution of the United States"  The order is 102 pages of running from the courts duty to the US Constitution.  In essence a lot of BS, because that is how CREW argued it - the WRONG BS.  The order is here

December 19, 2023 the Colorado Supreme barred Trump from the ballot.  The 208 page ruling is here

The CREW Petition for Appellate Review is here

The CREW Opening Appellate  Brief is here

Trump appeal is here

December 6, 2023 Colorado Supreme Court Oral argument is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz4ZqwrsipA with a news summary at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2DW-JhCJL8  Here is the argument as from C-span. https://www.c-span.org/video/?532255-1/colorado-supreme-court-oral-argum... and notice near the very end Trump's lawyer opens the door to 18 USC 2383.

The  lower District (Wallace) Court threw as much a ruling as possible to the petitioner effectively ruling under 18 USC 2383 but no one sees it.

A 2 hour 28 minutes news reel collage and legal reading video  to show how the Judge actually ruled under 18 USC 2383 that mandates bar from the ballot if so found to have incited insurrection.  So the oath and officer technicality is moot.  See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_2U53cUTy8

A newsreel type editorial video on the reality of the Colorado Supreme Court ruling.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX1dgHvr59k

Here is a fairly well written news article on it before the ruling.  https://coloradonewsline.com/2023/11/16/trump-14th-amendment-trial-color...

The Colorado Judge intentionally has kicked the can up the road.  Here ruling is based on two things.  The president is not an "officer" of the Untied States.  That ti "poppy-cock" as in  Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 125 (1976) (per curiam).  explained in Buckley: We think that the term “Officers of the United States” as used in Art. II, defined to include “all persons who can be said to hold an office under the government,”  Of course the "Office of the Presidency" is an "office".  Second the Judge focuses on "insurrection" when the focus should be on "rebellion" and that is in regard to Article II, Section I Clause I against the Constitution by trying to stay in power beyond four years without being re-elected.  But CREW while warned  forged ahead and screwed the pooch.  But the argument should have begun with the second impeachment where he was charged with "incitement to Insurrection" which carries the Section 3 bar with it.  The Colorado court need not define engage, insurrection, and the like as 18 USC 2383 defines it in an encompass.  The problem is a big confusion trial makes a mess on appeal because there is too much to "un-define" - for instance "defend" is a synonym for "support" and the court says the oath taken by the President is not to "support" the Constitution.  Finally there is no "obvious" place where the petitioners made the connection to Article II Section I Clause I as the rebellion point in the Constitution because they argued the whole case based on January 6, 2021.

December 19, 2023 the Colorado Supreme barred Trump from the ballot.  The 208 page ruling is here

December 27, 2023 the Colorado GOP filed its Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court here  It does not argue that Trump was not engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States.    It argues the technicality  Trump was not an officer and Section 3 of the 14th amendment cannot be used by a state..  It also argues a political party  has a right to choose whoever they want, as a political candidate Constitution be damned.!!!   Wow!!!

Anderson filed a motion to expedite  here

CREW responded to the GOP Petition for writ of certiorari  here

Trump filed his Petition for  Writ of Certiorari January 3, 2024 found  here

The Trump v Anderson 23-719 case is found here at the public docket at  https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/ht... documents filed will launch from there. .

Here is the best amicus brief alleged to be in support of neither party.  It claims the DC Federal Court has exclusive jurisdiction to issue Quo Warranto to include the president, and this is true BUT  guess how Quo Warranto is proved???  By the use  of Section 3 of the 14th amendment as against rebellion against the Constitution of the United States such as a violation of a specific Article, Section and Clause or Amendment and Section and or Clause in rebellion thereto by the conduct of the person alleged to be in violation of an ability to hold office.  The brief tries to show the automatic disqualification does not apply to keep the person from running in the first place.  Quo Warranto is used to remove someone from office through Section 3 of the 14th amendment and this amicus author is plain confused or is attempting to mislead the court.  That brief is  here

So as was argued by an attempted intervenor  in Clark v Weber in California before Judge Carter rushed to dismiss it, a Federal judge can issue a writ of Mandamus in presidential election issues to  against the Section 3 of the 14th amendment based on Article II Section I Clause I as Trump's effort to stay in the United States as president beyond 4 years which disqualified him by the Constitution itself.

Judge J Micheal Luttig with the Society for Rule Law submits an amicus brief supporting the Respondents to affirm where they spend considerable time arguing the SCOTUS has jurisdiction when the history of Section 3 of the 14th amendment shows they do not, and at best do not yet.  The path would go decision barring, to Congress for vote, then the Supreme Court for constitutional judicial review.  The second part of the brief they argue how the ruling through incitement to insurrection is engaged in insurrection against the Constitution of the United States when 18 USC 2383 defines that but not against the Constitution, but instead only against the United States or laws thereof.. It is a good job and is so far the ONLY brief which ties Article II Section I Clause I as Trump's effort to stay in power past 4 years without being re-elected is what self executes the bar to office because it activates the rebellion against the Constitution of the United States.  While a moot point, if the Supreme Court provides relief to the bar to office, Congress can reverse by voting uh no it doesn't.  They argue the Supremacy Clause gives this final authority when in reality it does not because the States control their elections and like a constitutional amendment only 2/3 vote of other states can over rule one.  The brief doubles back on its own argument here. Their argument is a simple majority is political, but that is exactly the point, because regardless at the counting of the electoral votes a vote not "regularly given" may be considered may be one cast for a candidate who is "constitutionally ineligible" through Section 3 of the 14th amendment by an objection in writing signed by one fifth of the members of both houses where the objection is to set aside those votes from being  counted and it becomes then a resolution by majority vote by citing a specific Article, Section and Clause or Amendment and Section and or Clause in rebellion thereto by the conduct of the person alleged to be in violation of an Article or a person responsible for delivering an insurrection which then will sustain the objection and set aside those electoral votes as not constitutionally lawfully "regularly given".  So the new ECRA of 2022  provides a comprehensive solution to the problem of the insurrectionist candidate being barred based on an objection or host of objections or prior rebellious conduct.  One such being developed at this writing is a Supeona to Trump from Congress to turn over ALL records of his business operations while Trump was president in reason to show the emoluments clause violated.  Here Section 3 of the 14th amendment operates by public record of conduct to trigger the bar to office based on disqualifying activity.   It could nullify his candidacy and all votes for the candidate defaulting to the next constitutionally qualified candidate with the highest popular vote total nationally.  The Luttig and friends brief is here

Meidas Touch Network attorney Michael Popok reviews the Luttig brief at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHzzDZm9WwY

If a state disqualified the candidate that is why appeal goes directly to Congress.

The best and easiest to read brief that basically tells the court this is EXACTLY what Section 3 of the 14th amendment was written for and understood as self executing when drafted and enacted that one would think corners the Supreme Court is found here and Lawrence O'Donnell does a review report on it at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eo2PmAH2Fs4

Amazingly the Congressional Republicans filed an amicus brief which walks right into the call for jurisdiction trap of the final sentence of Section 3 of the 14th amendment.   First, members of Congress have no place nor standing as a private citizen to file to argue a violation of the Constitution to assist an adjudged insurrectionist to violate the Constitution. Obviously not understanding how Trump's violation of Article II Section I Clause I as Trump's effort to stay in power past 4 years without being re-elected is what self executes the bar to office making Trump "constitutionally ineligible", the final sentence of Section 3 of the 14th amendment is what they use as their primary argument not realizing that the case would come to them even without Colorado ruling with Trump needing to start at Judge carter's ruling against Article II Section I Clause I which is the disqualifying activity that self executes as the rebellion of the Constitution of the United States.  I always knew they were dumb but maybe a bunch of them know this is the death bell for Trump.  Section 3 of the 14th amendment is self executing and courts should not be involved in the activation of it and indeed here they are not.  The court was involved in a Mandamus statute  of Colorado which spent harmless superfluous time explain the relation of the Article II Section I Clause I rebellion in Trump's effort to switch the fake electors in to be counted.  That brief is   here

Here is the amicus brief of Michigan Secretary of state Jocelyn Benson which basically says "tell us how this works" I am clueless - said the lamb to the wolf. here

Trump's brief on the merits is filed but NOT ONE SINGLE BRIEF SO FAR MENTIONS Article II Section I Clause I which is the gravamen of the whole thing - that and the fact the Supreme Court does not have any jurisdiction.  Trump's brief is the same as his petitioner a little further found  here

Anderson filed their reply which should launch directly from the SCOTUS.  https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/298854/2024012611564508...

Judge Luttig here saw this whole thing coming in June 2022 interview with FRONTLINE  PBS for their show " Lies, Politics and Democracy" - 2 hour 45 minute interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9YrPe2Vr84  jump to the end where he says the most important thing of all. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9YrPe2Vr84&t=8424s

Mark Sanford June 2022 interview with FRONTLINE  PBS for their show " Lies, Politics and Democracy" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbOOeF8L3Kw

Tim Alberta June 2022 interview with FRONTLINE  PBS for their show " Lies, Politics and Democracy" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOwQmSc2I3A

Adam Kinzinger June 2022 interview with FRONTLINE  PBS for their show " Lies, Politics and Democracy" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Me8JNADr318

Mona Charan June 2022 interview with FRONTLINE  PBS for their show " Lies, Politics and Democracy". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13dPT9Cr6u4

Jelani Cobb June 2022 interview with FRONTLINE  PBS for their show " Lies, Politics and Democracy". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Luk8VDv3HY

John Bolton June 2022 interview with FRONTLINE  PBS for their show " Lies, Politics and Democracy" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbJo1LS2mn8

The FRONTLINE FULL documentary January 6 story show “Lies, Politics and Democracy” is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2eTiE3k7ds

Here at the very end this explains why Biden may well loose Michigan because of the Israeli position he has taken.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXYRJJIn_wI

Trump and Democracy is off the chain https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_I6IdDVXOk

December 6, 2023 Oregon jumped in as a Mandamus action citing to the Colorado ruling which in Oregon is by three document  of a petition, memorandum and statement of facts <= yes each is a document

January, 4, 2024 Massachusetts jumped in with a Remove Trump Petition here

January, 4, 2024 Illinois also  jumped in with a Remove Trump Petition here

ALL three of the above also  MISS claiming the required rebellion to Article II, Section I Clause I required to PROVE a Section 3 violation - see below video

Those two petitions have the same flaw that Judge J. Micheal Luttig and Neil Katyal describe here which jumps right to it  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX1dgHvr59k&t=360s and see why it does not belong in Court systems and goes direct to Congress after the determination is made at  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5E_3uhVy08&t=3240s

Because everyone seems to think the insurrection was January 6, 2021, the courts are confused and the attorneys are too, so the courts punt.  Minnesota Supreme Court and the Michigan case bug out claiming they cannot define what "engaged in insurrection" means legally.

On November 5, 2023 Judge J. Michael Luttig affirmed the PDF file above is the correct argument as to what constitutes "engaged in insurrection" as far as Mr Trump is concerned.  See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ll4DFbHrOmA&t=132s  Judge Luttig makes clear in his own obfuscative way of speaking  that the "insurrection or rebellion" as far a Trump was concerned against the Constitution of the United States  is to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 1 - also called the "Vesting Clause" that if not successfully re-elected, the term ends at 4 years.  Because of Trump's efforts to find a way to stay by his voting scheme to overturn the election is the "insurrection or rebellion" constituted Mr Trump being "engaged in insurrection".  To that end the argument the "request" herein makes is that the public record which exposes and defines this is the three indictments by the US government and the the RICO inducement of Georgia all of which sought to disrupt the "government function" the counting of and certification thereof the votes from the states of the valid electors..  The events of the riot of January 6, 2021 are only a tangential component. The Request argues 18 USC 2383 defines that the indictments are enough public record for Section 3 of the 14th amendment to self execute barring Trump's run for or holding office again.  January 6, 2021 and all the facts and testimony have literally much of nothing to do with defining Trump as "engaged in insurrection".  See also Lawrence Tribe explain why Removal from the ballot is imperative. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5E_3uhVy08&t=2925s. Jump right to part where why self executing and courts should not be involved.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5E_3uhVy08&t=3240s

Here is the thing.  Everyone is scared. No one is sure how to prosecute or rule on a Section 3 of the 14th amendment claim.  In fact there is  private right of enforcement but through the Election official to try to challenge and then get both a ruling and a bar to in Mandamus.  The other way is to remove someone from office by Quo warranto.  Both require an actual  conscious rebellion against a term in the Constitution of the United States or of the oath of office as some kind of "disqualifying activity"

This can go horribly wrong because for instance with Trump it is not the riot he incited that finds him "engaged in insurrection" it is his underlying scheme to stay in power past 4 years without being re-elected that is the "rebellion against the Constitution of the United States at Article II Section I Clause I that activates Section 3 of the 14th amendment.  The riot and fake elector scheme and arm twisting for votes are components of that scheme.  The trouble is everyone equates the riot of January 6, 2021 as the "engaged in insurrection" moment for Trump.  It is not and the two orders from Colorado and Maine take the long way around through the riot and scheme without calling out the Article, Section and Clause.

If you want to help with the National Popular Vote Consitutional Amendment Initiative Effort and you are a citizen of Arizona, Michigan, Ohio, Missouri or Florida - jump here

The issue  is not that Trump "MIGHT BE" disqualified, it is that he ABSOLUTELY IS DISQUALIFIED and should not be grifting people by even campaigning and running

The Trump is a buffoon collage video.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18Mf4qZ6tMM

Michael Cohen calls him Donald Von Shitzen pants and it is true.  Trump shits his pants into a diaper.  See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnK164efOB0&t=478s or full from the beginning https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnK164efOB0 so Trump is one sick puppy

Some Lincoln Project great ads. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-vza0lE4y8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gl7LEdMnGLo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m40yw_3dfvg and  interview with George Conway December 2023 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMvRDX8FGeY

After the expulsion of McCarthy, 45 Republicans wrote this letter blaming the Democrats and seeking to change thee rule.  - like they could not count as THEY expelled McCarthy, the Democrats simply did not vote to save him.  here

In the DC Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 74 Filed 10/05/23. Trump  is trying to dismiss the DC case claiming "presidential immunity - can you see how this may well blow up in Trump's face???   Here is the deal  - see the motion at." Argument" section "B"  where the Trump attorney argues Trump was acquitted.  He was not - as there was no "trial".  The Constitution requires that the Chief Justice preside over the trial of the President.  Justice Robert's declined to do so.   What happened was the Senate by resolution took up the issue of guilt on a majority vote.  Trump was found guilty of "incitement to insurrection" by a simple majority.  This defines Trump as having been "engaged in insurrection"  which under Section 3 of the 14th amendment bars him from holding office.  If anyone on Smiths staff is smart enough to catch this he just sunk himself.   https://www.manchin.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Fact%20Sheet%20on%20impeach... or our local copy here at "trial procedures"  here

This is Jack Smiths office's reply to Trump's motion on October 19, 2023 here

Judge J. Micheal Luttig filed an amicus brief  for Judge Chutkan in support of the DOJ position to deny the presidential immunity claim, stating the identification of the rebellion against the Constitution of the United States as "First, the appended brief is the first brief ever to argue that protecting the  four-year term and re-election requirements in the Executive Vesting Clause in  Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, provides narrow, dispositive  grounds to reject a potential defense of absolute presidential immunity." in this amicus brief dated October 20, 2023 which is here

Judge Chutkan ruled in a 48 page complete rebuke denying the motion in which she uses the word "engaged" as it relates to the January 6th issue.  The order is here

Judge Chutkan writes at page 41 at "I Structure" :

""Structural considerations support reading the Impeachment Judgment Clause as the plain  language suggests. First, as the Government notes, impeachment and prosecution serve distinct   goals within the separation of powers. See Opp’n to Constitutional Motion at 52–53.  Impeachment “is designed to enable Congress to protect the nation against officers who have  demonstrated that they are unfit to carry out important public responsibilities,” whereas  prosecution is designed to “penalize individuals for their criminal misdeeds.” OLC Double  Jeopardy Memo at *13. Impeachment proceedings provide far fewer procedural safeguards than   do prosecutions, see id., and accordingly, Congress may not dispense criminal penalties in  impeachment proceedings, supra Section V.A. Impeachment is not a substitute for prosecution."

This is why one should not take a legal job without a legal education because you do so at your own peril.  The second impeachment has two flaws.  The Chief Justice did not preside, so Trump actually had no trial, nor acquittal, and for what Trump was charged with "incitement to insurrection" carries an automatic self executing bar to office upon charging which only in US law Congress can relieve unless in an impeachment setting in Congress the accused gets 67 NOT GUILTY votes - or the requisite 2/3 vote set forth in Section3 of the 14th Amendment which ONLY Congress may provide.  impeachment only has two remedies - Removal from Office and Bar to Office. 

Bar to Office is found through 18 USC 2383 by charging, and by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment by public record and / or Judicial finding through due process protections, and by Constitutional impeachment trial with the Chief Justice presiding.  Here on November 17, 2023 a Colorado court found Trump engaged in insurrection by incitement to insurrection for the purpose executing his plan to be in rebellion against Article II Section I Clause I which terminates Trump office at the end of 4years by the US Constitution. 

In the public record Trump is Criminally indicted in DC and Georgia alleging the same. Neither 18 USC 2383 nor Section 3 of the 14th Amendment require a conviction or any charging for the bar to activate.  what is required is the requisite conduct of incitement to insurrection or rebellion to the Constitution of the United States.  Here both are present in addition to the charge in Congress never having been acquitted to the level required to remove the "disability" to hold office by the self executing bars to office of both.  Judge Chutkan as well as Mitch McConnell have set forth the charge remains active and able to be  prosecuted on "incitement to insurrection"  Both the DC and Georgia cases carry both components of insurrection incitement and rebellion against the Constitution of the United States carrying the automatic bar to office.  Trump is effectively 34 years old again barred from running to be president.

The concept of self executing legal provisions are so foreign to Americans they cannot wrap their heads around it when they see it.  These features are found all throughout the law, a nondisclosure agreement is the best example - you speak you are guilty.  Here you try to stay in power past four years - your are disqualified and barred forever, you try to incite others to help you - same effect.  A court does not need to make any further declaration - you just rolled the clock as far as being President is concerned to being under age of 35 years or non natural born.

The docket to entire DC "election interference case" hosted by courtlistener is  FULL DOCKET HERE

Here is where Trump walked right into a Section 3 of the 14th amendment argument cross over in this case beginning on page 47 - sub section 3, given what Judge J Micheal Luttig just defined above as what constitutes "engaged in insurrection" - "against the Constitution of the United States" which now opens this court and case to rule Trump's actions are "engaged in insurrection" as to Section 3 of the 14th amendment and guess what??? See the document here

In dkt document 140 Jack Smiths 'office responds to a motion to strike from Trump things from the indictment which he believes do not belong, and it backfires on Trump with Smith saying that in essence that is a crux of the case.  In essence they are going to prove "engaged in insurrection - through the criminal counts so charged. Document 140 is here. Politico writes the same at  at YouTube video of MSNBC" All in with Chris Hayes " at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlY-aoSYEHQ and the Politico article is at https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/09/donald-trump-jan-6-riot-defenda.... Smiths' team may get an order stating a finding "engaged in insurrection " is the attempt to thwart the regular election process yet before trial.

Judge Chutkan has re-imposed the "gag"  order October 29, 2023 which is here

There was a case in Michigan which the Judge Chickened out calling it a political issue unable to be adjudicated.  The order is here   it is being appealed.  The court did this to kick it up the road.  The court cites the Minnesota Supreme Court ruling, and sees that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is awaiting Congress to create a law up or down on the issue.

Here is the link to the "Unfit" documentary at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecJ02Rg5qaE

How dumb are the Republican supporters of Trump???  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otOqlEkN1MU

"Unfair Game - How Trump Won" - the full documentary and jump to the end at 50 min in to the end at  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJScbYEyapQ

Is Trump the one with cognitive impairment.  One has to wonder if he understands the seriousness of the legal issues and how many people do not support him.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq1Nb0L9gyg

Trump is a Sociopath.  A sociopath is a term used to describe a person with a severe form of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD). Sociopaths do not have a fully functional conscience and tend to be manipulative, exploitative, or even abusive toward other people. https://www.choosingtherapy.com/signs-of-a-sociopath/ with an example of it and how Trump is spreading it via Morning Joe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTkmRi0I550

One of Trump's Wharton Professor thought he was the dumbest g&$#@m student ever.  https://www.studyinternational.com/news/trump-student-wharton/

Trump 2023 Veterans Day Speech, Hitler, Mousillini and "vermin" - Meidas touch - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYisaVSAgnU

A House censure resolution from Rep Becca Balint about 10 minutes long was read into the record October 26, 2023.  Matt Graves, the US Attorney for DC, was served with a quo warranto draft  in early October which just needs that resolution attached to throw Marjorie Taylor Greene out of Congress.  See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=015gqS82eMk  The local PDF copy is here  Of course it is expected the Republicans will not vote for it, but as the saying goes, "its been said", and it wil make great evidence in a Quo Warranto complaint against Greene.  Additionally Greene has called for States sucede from the United States.  See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdDo5H66tkE&t=3142s

After Trump was gagged in the DC Case, he acted out in the New York state business fraud case was fined 5,000 then 10,000 dollars at which point Jack Smith's team filed a motion to vacate the stay pending appeal and strengthen the gag order and reimpose it.  The filing 10/25/2023 is here.   See also https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/25/special-counsel-trump-federal-g...

Trump supporters are generally classified as "God Delusional" White Christian Nationalists.  See eg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCTHkJ3yvyk

There is more "proof" extraterrestrials exist than does a "God" as the book of Enoch is missing and banned from today's Bible.  See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcHA7u6X9pM. Speaker Mike Johnson says to know how he thinks "read the Bible" ah, but which one???  Christian biblical canons range from the 73 books of the Catholic Church canon, and the 66-book canon of most Protestant denominations, to the 81 books of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church canon, among others.  Today, The Book of Enoch only survives in its entirety in Ge'ez (Ethiopic) translation. It is part of the biblical canon used by the Ethiopian Jewish community Beta Israel, as well as the Christian Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church.

The Republicans have begun their obstruction efforts with their new speaker Johnson  on October 31, 2023 see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmBaEfzRiMM

But that Speaker Mike Johnson is both an insurrectionist and giving aid and confort to Trump when he authored and got  125 Republican members of the House of Representatives  to sign onto and then filed an amicus brief in a Texas insurrection case  under the "Independent Legislature Theory"  seeking to invalidate certified ballot results by the Texas Attorney General,  of other states which could not have been farther from the business of Texas and Congress seeking to thwart  Electoral Count Act of 1887 which failed before the US Supreme Court.  The brief is here

Jon Meacham on the history of politics  in America and the racial struggles that give us the Republicans of today.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xl9PQk1C9gQ ( 3 hours documentary). See David Brooks  on same  at. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JRSLhClyvw

On August 7, 2022 Dr. Brandy Lee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandy_X._Lee ) did an interview with the “Five Minute News” show on Youtube via the Medias Network in which she detailed the Mental Issues of Donald Trump she had been warning about before 2020 election issues that told that Trump in New York was known to be a “gangster” family of which we should have expected an insurrection from.  See it at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DREKGn4nPhQ (1 hour and 5 minutes long titled “Top Psychiatrist SOUNDS ALARM on Trump’s Deteriorating Mental Fitness”

The Trump Business partial Summary Judgment which basically ends that case in New York's favor is here (caution 17 MB download)  An  analysis from All in with Crhis Hayes is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isvCF6bWPFM and from Alex Wagner is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hi_cKzOH66s  If the order order stands an appeal it will result in Trump loosing Millions in property and possibly Billions.  Trump's fantasy speech in Michigan before non-union - not UAW  striking workers Biden visited on September 27, 2023, which the typical promise pot of lies covered by FOX 2 in Detroit.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_OELLDxfXc at a 300 person, rigged invite only event in front of people who were not on strike NOR UAW as reported by NBC News at 59:30 into the Morning News found posted to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXTa2tFFke8  so it was same old lies by FOX and Trump.

Here is the scoop on the latest on September 28, 2023 of the continuing ongoing insurrection from inside the government at the insistence and direction of Trump.  It is astonishing how people cannot understand the insurrection is ongoing.  See. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaxXT51H00Q

In actuality Trump was never the legitimately elected president of the United States as he cheated there too.  To stop this pushing the National Popular Vote Effort Compact there would be no more electoral college steals.  Trump took the Presidency in 2016 by 77000  votes accross three states despite the 3 million national popular vote spread.  See "Unfair game how Trump won" found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJScbYEyapQ at about 50 minutes in to the end.

The CREW Colorado 9/6/2023 lawsuit is locally here

In this video below Lawrence Tribe is interviewed a few days after the filing.  This is posted on October 30, 2023 the day the Colorado suit hearing / trial being held and he explains why Section 3 of the 14th amendment is self executing in that it was written at a time when the Judiciary and other branches were not trusted as being staffed with confederate and insurrectionist people.

(Initially  derailed by a Federal removal  see - below why in  this page said do not file in court or sue Trump directly - then several flaws were pointed out, mainly Jena Griswold did not agree to Removal - required that all defendants agree, and there was no Federal questions for the Federal Court to have Jurisdiction of.  Trump agreed to Remand back to State Court  apparently   Here is the Removal as filed. )  Here is the ORDER of REMAND back to State Court.

Free Speech People filed suit in Minnesota after writing the Minnesota Secretary of State to bar Trump from the ballot, who replied saying his office lacked the authority to bar Trump.  Several Minnesota citizens by and with the assistance of Free Speech for People filed this Minnesota Stats directed lawsuit  It is well drafted and has excellent argument and citations.  But NOTE most importantly it does not include Mr. Trump as a defendant.  It does not however argue the strongest issue that Congress has already adjudicated Mr. Trump through its power under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment that by the initial mechanism of Impeachment that Trump is an insurrectionist even though he has already left office when the vote in the Senate occurred as at best only a resolution.

The Minnesota Supreme Court chickened out failing to bar Trump at this time but did so without prejudice allowing the case to be re-filed.  The hearing occurred November 2, 2023, three days before Judge J Micheal Luttig clarified the courts so far are confused.  In Minnesota interestingly a conviction of Trump may throw him off the ballot.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx_4aDmERWo is the complete argument.  Judge Luttig is right and if it had been argued the insurrection was the scheme to stay in power it would be a winner.  Now that people know to argue Article II Section I Clause I is then completely different.  Trump may well be off the ballot yet.

A lawsuit is filed in New Jersey found reported by the media at. https://newjerseymonitor.com/2023/09/15/attempt-to-bar-donald-trump-from.... The actual suit is here and appears similar to the Colorado and Minnesota suits.

Actually Lawfare has built tracker - but missed the one below, Clarke v Weber.  The tracker is at https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-projects/the-trump-trials/section-3...

A Civil Rights based Federal Complaint was filed in Los Angeles California seeking to enforce Section 3 of the 14th amendment based on 42 USC 1983 against the California Secretary of state seeking Injunctive relief..  It is a novel approach and the complaint is found here   It is a skeleton complaint of 4 pages and was transferred to David O. Carter, a Clinton appointee who  is 79 years old.  According to the jury instructions at https://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/140 it might work, but the issue is if the Secretary was asked first to bar Trump and refused to make the matter ripe. As document 13 the plaintiff formally filed a motion and petition for injunctive relief to bar Trump which is here (caution 3.8 MB download)     The court then on its own motion issued an OSC which basically says amend the complaint to prove subject matter jurisdiction here. The problem is that John Anthony Castro has been running around filing craziness in 17 states but loosing them and now Trump has intervened, and been Granted intervention and all of Castro in his failures is being used against Section 3 of the 14th amendment.  here   The Court wants the plaintiff to meet this subject matter jurisidiction actual injury Article III  standard in an amendmed complaint according to something like discussed at  https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/claus...

Proposed order is here  If the Federal Judge signs this order, ALL Secretaries of State must bar Trump from the Ballot because it is ruled upon on a US Constitutional interpretation by a Federal Judge.  At that point Judicial Review ends and Trump must request the Congress to give him relief from the the bar to office according to the final sentence of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment  Notice thee hearing date is October 23, 2023 - and if the Secretary of State does not object the Judge may then grant it immediately.  The Trump second Presidential nightmare then ends and Trump must terminate his run for an office he cannot holhold. The Court rushed to dismiss it sua sponte on October 20, 2023. The pacermonitor public docket can be viewed at. https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/50422398/AW_Clark_v_Shirley_N_W... Here is the order dismissing, the court reasoned it was filed as a "test" case and thus lacked standing.  It was a pretty dumb way to file a lawsuit saying I want to vote for Trump, but only if he is qualified to be on the ballot.  The order dismissing is here

John Anthony Castro plans to run as a write in Republican candidate.

According to a report in the ABA Journal, John Anthony Castro has filed lawsuits in 11 states, including Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Florida.

In a post on X, the social media site formerly known as Twitter, Mr. Castro posted the cover sheets for lawsuits in eight additional states — Idaho, Kansas, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.

There is no other way to describe this as anything but reckless.  The Wisconsin suit is here and his Florida suit was dismissed because it needlessly names Trump in his suits so Trump can move to dismiss which works like here  Castro appealed the dismissal due to standing to the US Supreme Court here.  The Petition Appendix is here   The Petition was denied, and there is no written order at this time but the entry in the SCOTUS docket here   Castro's case was as defective as it gets, he sued Donald Trump, when it should have been the Secretary of State AFTER REQUESTING Trump be Removed from the Ballot and then should have followed the LA Suit format if in Federal Court.  The US Supreme Court was not going to hear the case mostly because it lasked jurisdiction to do so in according to the last sentence of Section 3.  Castro's case to the US Supreme Court means nothing except thsat he is an idiot.  The Section 3 issue is not affected yet by any court ruling as of October 2, 2023, but of course the media is having a field day.

In Castro's New Mexico case the court issued an OSC why it should not be dismissed.  This is a kind result reckless gets you.  Even though Castro has two law degrees, he has no license to practice law, and the court is being soft as it is supposed to be for pro se litigants.  The complaint is here This is the judge  who is a Harvard graduate appointed by Biden.  But Federal  Judges are locked to the law and their limited jurisdiction and the complaint does not have Federal claims while it does cite Federal and Constitutional law, it is not likely to not go well for Castro on the issues the OSC seeks unless he fixes the issues by perhaps amending the complaint.  The OSC is  here  The issue would be different if he had not sued Trump also in the suit.  Assuming Castro himself wrote all this himself , he is talented to draft - but an idiot as to legal strategy and to know who to sue.  He has no license to practice law. 

Keep in mind this is a National Constitution issue and there are 663 authorized Article 3 district court judgeships across the country. Any one of those judges can issue a nationwide injunction against a federal government action and conversely in this case could make a ruling that Trump was engaged in insurrection, which then according to Section 3 ends further judicial action forcing Trump before Congress to get a 2/3 vote from both houses to remove the bar to office due to the fact that the Constitution automatically bars him.

Do not sue your Secretary of state and do not sue Donald Trump.  You can REQUEST the Secretary of State or whoever is the election official in your state remove or bar Trump from the ballot using the information similar of the PDF  at the top of this page, but this is NOT legal advice.   If they refuse you might then have standing for an election law or civil rights claim depending on your state law.  Consult an attorney. 

These court cases are not likely to go well in a timely fashion.  Almost every one of the cases has a legal defect.  Section 3 of the 14th amendment is self executing and was meant to execute on the public record on reasons of good common sense,  to bar a person from the ballot and hence office and for those who think they were wrongly barred their path for relief is by two thirds vote of both houses of Congress by review of the public record. 

In instances of qou warranto to REMOVE someone from office then a suit is brought against them directly based on the public record.  In many states today only the Attorney General can bring that complaint unless they decline to do so.  To remove a Congressman it must be brought in the DC US District Court similarly by the DOJ unless they decline to do so.  It looks like the powers that be are afraid to enforce the 14th amendment.   Again check your state law and consult an attorney. MSNBC in "Allin with Chris Hayes" September 27, 2023 has a hard charging segment at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3Puc7m4rz0 and especially at 15:30  shows information that can be used in Quo Warranto actions.  Most people are angry and in an arm flinging tizzy but the USDOJ has been sent documents and asked to get moving on this on September 23, 2023.  We will see what they do.

It is looking more like Trump is not such a front runner in states where primaries are coming up.  See what Chris Christie said on "Meet the Press" Sunday September 24, 2023 at about 8:30 into the broadcast at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY6UMFNQuh0 where Christie makes the point National polls are not the local polls of the relevant state where the primary is to be held.  Trump lately has been his own worst enemy and is slipping badly in those states where the primary is to held as Christie cites.

It appears courts will punt where they can to force an appeal, as will Secretaries of state, but the question is will the appeal be on if Trump is already an insurrectionist or if a Secretary has barred Trump and then it gets messy because of the final sentence of Section 3 which is jurisdictional relief statement that Congress gets the bar to office appeal, not the courts.

Noah Bookbinder, CEO of CREW appeared on Velshi on MSNBC on September 9, 2023 and claimed that Trump Lawyers agree it would remain in State court at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLZsTmM5eJI  But here is the thing, the Federal Court under a smart judge would transfer or refer  the case to Congress and would have dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.

It is clear every Secretary of state is fearful of doing their job.  The GOP Trump supporters are essentially Domestic Terrorists. Jocelyn Benson has said as much for herself personally.  But each state election law requires an affidavit or declaration of candidacy that requires the applicant swear or affirm they will are qualified to take the office, and this qualification Donald John Trump cannot meet in any case.   This leaves a US Constitutional duty to bar him from any ballot as disqualified - period. 

The country quickly forgot Donald Trump was resolved as an insurrectionist by Congress in his second impeachment by both houses. Since Trump had left office by the time scheduled for his senate trial it was effectively only a vote on a resolution vote instead on the question and passed by 57 to 43..  In the Senate a simple majority passes resolutions.  As shown herein he was indicted in the DC matter for the same activity. 

Thus Congress already adjudged that Trump was engaged in insurrection in his second impeachment which did not proceed to trial because Trump had left office, but the vote on whether he was engaged in insurrection passed the simple majority needed to affirm the issue. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_impeachment_of_Donald_Trump and https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/voting.htm

Judge J. Michael Luttig explains why no one has been charged under 18 USC 2383 and why Jack Smith could not charge under insurrection at 18 USC 2383 at about 8 minutes into  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecjvi8XtM00 and here describes how these actions of Trump and his cohorts are "grave crimes" at.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWHyoZnQZyc

Medhi Hasan on MSNBC screws up a debate that should not have been done or  broadcast  at  https://www.youtube.com/watch?si=EeJsaks-r_D8SWr1 but one thing one the guests says is he believes the Supreme Court does not want the matter before it. That is OK, because they have no right to hear it or rule on Section 3 of the 14^th Amendment

Mitt Romney reveals how Senators on the Republican side feared for their political and actual lives and family to vote yes on the second impeachment since Trump was now out of office anyway.  See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38-Wvd8XDyY  a video entitled  'Think of your children': Top GOP senator voted to acquit Trump over safety fears, book says - YouTube

It is beyond clear people are scared of the domestic terrorist faction among us - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYPTeTFtC-I  where at 5:10 in Jocelyn Benson is immortalized in terror - arguably now dancing in anyway possible to avoid her duty because of it.  and https://www..youtube.com/watch?v=i4MKX4_52Mo which shows the insurrection is ongoing and now inside Congress at the hand of Trump.   Rep Jamie Raskin makes clear here that Congress has adjudged Trump an insurrectionist automatically activating his bar to office at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooObNOzPMFc beginning at about 5 minutes in. 

For the Secretaries who are attorneys, they need to read the final sentence of Section 3 and Section 5 also of the 14th amendment and it should be clear no court has jurisdiction of this matter, and Mr Trump cannot sue for doing their  job, he can and MUST  however go to Congress for relief by gaining a 2/3 vote to relieve him of the Bar to run for office.  The US Supreme Court and no court has jurisdiction but and unless that secretary FAILS to do their job and are sued let's say in "quo warranto" to remove them from office and for injunctive relief to force the issue by a court order.   When and if Trump sues or appeals, they only need remind the court section 3 of the 14th amendment controls and jurisdiction rests solely in Congress and move to dismiss Trump's action.  If they do their job they will be fine, but to fail to follow the Constitution and what Congress already ruled and that will be what opens them up to liability to even loose their office for at the very least giving "aid and comfort" to an adjudged insurrectionist, Mr. Trump in his ongoing efforts.  This is the law of the land, not an affiliation to a political party issue.

On January 19, 2021 a letter brief style article was posted by a respected Law Professor to Lawfare here  The article points out "Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Powell v. McCormack, eligibility requirements permit exclusion by a majority vote, while all other grounds must be addressed through expulsion and a two-thirds vote. ". Which tends to support that the Congress found Trump" guilty" of the incitement to insurrection, but since he had left office the two-thirds vote was irrelevant.  Thus as argued herein Trump was found guilty by Congress of being engaged in insurrection., and is barred from office.  The article also in a goofy way states that the matter does not belong in a court unless the court is needed to find the person was "engaged in insurrection", which is not the case here fot several reasons.  The article goes on to say "Section 3 is different from a disqualification from federal office imposed as a sentence for an impeachment conviction. A disqualification sentence from the Senate is final and not, for all intents and purposes, subject to judicial review. ". Now this refers to the final sentence of Section 3, and even though the article is written to issues of removal from office by the Congress itself of a sitting member, the final sentence is a jurisdictional statement for either removal from OR bar to running for office again. The onlr escape of Section 3 is to return to Congress for relief by 2/3 vote to clear them. Trump has been "sentenced" by the senate as "engaged in insurrection" from the events of January 6, 2021 and Section 3 then self executes to bar Trump from office. Read the article and cases cited therein.

State election Code Law of every state requires a declaration that if the candidate is nominated and elected the candidate will qualify by taking the oath of office, except Donald John Trump is now barred by the automatic self  execution of  Section 3 of the 14th amendment

Every knucklehead and their mother and brother keeps saying this goes before the US Supreme Court.  It does not.  The final sentence of Section 3 clearly casts relief jurisdiction to Congress on specific terms how relief happens.  Section 5  carries it further, and Congress did codify Section 3 as 18 USC 2383 but did not relinquish its final sentence jurisdiction to the courts. It could not as Congress has no power to Amend the Constitution absent state approval.

Here is the Congressional Research Service paper on Section 3 of the 14th amendment

Section 3 of the 14th amendment has a jurisdiction clause of the final sentence which tells only Congress has jurisdiction to remove the bar to office. 

Jena Griswold, the Colorado Secretary of state makes clear 4:45 into  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I73fmCWNusw that it is her opinion Trump "engaged in insurrection" and barred, so because Colorado law only appears to allow a court to rule on a voter challenge her hands are tied right now, still one thing is for sure that she is of the opinion that Trump is a threat to Democracy.  She details how as an attorney and Secretary of State her hands are tied in a statement she released at. https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/newsRoom/pressReleases/2023/PR20230906AccessBallot.html  Except Article. 6  of the US Constitution actually ties her hands to Section 3 of the 14th amendment.

Micheal Popok a Medias Touch Network  Attorney did an analysis at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4ctpwX23TA But as Popok begins to say, at 11:00 minutes in  at "grow a pair" it does not belong in a court at all.  Only if the Secretary refuses to keep Trump off the ballot is the Secretary ONLY sued for injunctive relief and possibly under "quo warranto" if available in that state for providing "aid and comfort" to remove them from office AND by the final sentence of Section 3 of the 14th amendment, jurisdiction to remove the bar rests ONLY with Congress by 2/3 vote to remove the bar to office.  That means no court has jurisdiction really at all once determined to have been "engaged in insurrection"  Trump can only appeal to Congress, he cannot sue the Secretary - unless the fails to move to dismiss, so it is not clear what they are scared of but maybe Trump's supporters.

The REAL story about what is going on with elections starting with Trump is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJScbYEyapQ  Americans are being manipulated and targeted by internet forces often personally that disappears.

Glenn Kirschner a well known MSNBC Contributor and ex US Attorney has posted a video  at  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmY5gfKTCXg summarizing why and the current state of affairs as of September 4, 2023.  He gets one thing incorrect.  The final sentence of Section 3 of the 14th amendment find jurisdiction rests exclusively in Congress.  A Court would have jurisdiction of a quo warranto action but not relief from the bar to holding office.  By the amendment itself only Congress has that power. 

A YouTube channel called "The Young Turks" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHCo26VFRTw tried their hand at the Section 3 issue also.  It looks like a copy cat report from others and it turned into opinion BS.  This is the problem that leads to defeat - get up under the law stick with it and present a solution to the problem.

The truth is the Secretaries of State are scared of being sued, but they are protected from suit by that last sentence jurisdiction clause of Section 3.  The Constitution is the law and as soon as Trump announced and was indicted in DC the Congress should have stepped in and announced the DC indictment was the equivalent of "engaged in insurrection" that Trump was disqualified from running and either house sent it to the floor for a vote to relieve the "disability" of the bar to hold office.  If Trump came up short in which ever house voted either the other need not vote or in either case it was over and then NATIONALLY no Secretary of state could put him on the ballot.  No need for opinions and whining about the US Supreme Court needing to weigh in when frankly they will never have jurisdiction of the Bar to office matter..  The investigation is the determination of  "engaged in insurrection" and the DC indictment covers that, and Congress already ruled on that in the second Trump impeachment.

The reality is many Democrats want Trump to get the nomination because they believe the election would be a wipe out, but they keep forgetting until the National Popular Vote Effort Compact is activated an electoral college trip up could put Trump in the Whitehouse even with him loosing the popular vote.  On "" Morning Joe" at  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRsbTHESUKY makes the point that 8 of the last 9 Republican presidents all LOST the National Popular Vote.  In real terms we need to fix the National Popular Vote Effort Compact into reality to end this political BS.

On The Mehdi Hasan show on MSNBC he put the question to two authors of what to do about  lies - also known as "disinformation" and misinformation at https://www.youtube.com/watch?si=2SsvfJKNxcv8yKQp  Of course they had no answers.

Today right now we do have a weapon to use by defining all the far right BS as "aid and comfort" to an ongoing insurrection and anti law effort.  For politicians action under Section 3 of the 14th amendment can used showing how they are violating their oath of office using quo warranto federal suits to remove and bar them from office.  Lies in government are actionable.  

For those not in office 18 USC 2383 can be used ex rel by attorneys to fine them at a minimum of $1,000 dollars and imprison them.

But first people must stop talking in innuendo and glittering generalities and speak in terms of law to be used against them

This page  follows a MSNBC interview posted to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taU_Ig7Rb1Q which is an interview with Dean Obiedallah who is an MSNBC contributor and attorney as an overview of his efforts. You can see a full interview of how Judge J. Micheal Luttig got involved in the January 6th matter at his 2:45  hour long interview with PBS for Frontline at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9YrPe2Vr84 and here is Lawrence Tribe and J. Michael Luttig together on Section 3 of the 14th amendment.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PndXVq3zF4c

On July 12, 2023 Free Speech For People sent Letters to 15 Election authorities "urging" that Trump be kept from the ballot due to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. You can find and download them at https://tinyurl.com/aphmrfaz  The biggest problem with this is it does not "Request" the Election authority bar Trump in accord any State Law that requires them to do so, and it is not from a constituent they are obligated to respond to.  It is "nuisance" mail that can be ignored.  The form of the letters is identical "Letter Briefs" of 7 pages followed by a proposed memorandum which is in effect a proposed order.   Because these letters, all identical except for address, do not request action under any State Law they have a duty to address the letters raise a legal argument without any attachment to State Law requiring the urged action.  The argument of the letters could be partially  used but in the format of our sample REQUEST which you would look up and cite State law requiring action to the REQUEST.  The key difference is "engaged in insurrection" is linked to the indictments of Trump which are official "public records"  that link the "engaged in insurrection" definition directly to Mr. Trump.  The Minnesota Secretary responded and said he had no unilateral authority so the Minnesota suit above was filed.

On 5/9/2022 In Hansen v Finchem the Arizona Supreme Court acted on an expedited  appeal of basically a "quo warranto" action finding there is no private cause of action to Section 3 of the 14th amendment.  But in a scenario where the Secretary or Election Authority is required under state law to examine the qualifications of a candidate  through Section 3 of the 14th amendment, nothing the  Arizona Supreme  Court says in Hansen v Finchem  then applies.  This is a prime example of where filing a lawsuit versus making a REQUEST as a challenge under state law to the election authority can bite you in the butt through the court route.  Also especially in a local state court you may hit local prejudices.  The Arizona decision is here  The same thing happened in a Florida Federal Court recently here   Trump is not in office so stay out of court directly against him.  The way elections work in America each state has election laws with work differently to keep Trump off the ballot in that State.  There will never be a national brr to Trump unless someone finds a Federal election law - usually campaign finance violation which would carry to all the States.

There is a lot of confusion about Donald Trump back on the Ballot maybe.  News agencies keep reporting he is the front runner.  The fact is he is BARRED from holding the office by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment  ever again. See also. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JD2UJ97OglQ  See Judge J. Micheal Luttig interview with Washington Post (44 minutes)  at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecjvi8XtM00  but really see how the whole big lie began here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90O-q7dgS-I

How this MUST BE enforced is initially through a Request to the Secretary of State or Election Authority under your state's laws to disqualify Trump from being on the ballot, then if that fails you can sue the secretary of state in a quo warranto action involving Civil Rights and enforcement of the US Constitution and seek an injunction from the court barring Trump or forcing the Secretary  of State to do their job under the Constitution.  NOTE if they refuse, they become embroiled in the insurrection themselves. "giving aid or comfort thereto" .  It DOES NOT go to court first because Trump is not currently in any office.

If you do not send it as an actual  signed and mailed "Request" the Secretary of state " can and will likely ignore it as nuisance mail.  Also if it is a request you must identify the law or election code that requires the request to be granted under law, or requires the Secretary of State to grant it.  Your request needs to be legally sufficient for a judge to agree with you if the Secretary of State denies it.

Another path is to write your US Senator  and ask them to bring a vote to the floor on the assumption Mr Trump is barred, and ask them to vote on relieving the bar from Mr. Trump which would requires a 2/3 vote to do so.  It is not likely the House would bring a vote to the floor, because they know it would pour concrete on Mr. Trump's bar to holding office.  By the last sentence of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment Congress has exclusive jurisdiction.  You would use the same argument sample, but sent to your Senator and Majority Leader of the Senate.  Please note the Congress only has power to REMOVE the BAR which is upon the assumption the bar is self executing, and it requires a 2/3 vote in both house to do so, so the Congress cannot create some kind of backwards affirmation Trump is not barred.  That assumes the Congressional members are not stupid and start trying to policize the process into another bill.   That is what the "Sweep and Force of Section Three" is all about, that the bar is self executing, if an insurrection is established and Trump was engaged in it as shown now by the DC indictment.  In other words the Congress cannot say Trump was not engaged in insurrection, but only by 2/3 vote in both Houses of Congress remove the bar. Congress hasa been moved to do so, but they will sit on it I am sure and do nothing.

On September 6, CREW filed a Lawsuit in Colorado against he Secretary of State of Remove Trump from the ballot.  CREW is the only organization to have successfully prosecuted a Section 3 of the 14th Amendment case.  Alex Wagner with Claire McKaskill did  a REALLY POOR analysis of the Section 3 14th Amendment issue at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Aaqz4qiQYM  They did not read the lawsuit - because everything they talked about is COVERED in the lawsuit - just two cackling hens without a clue - sadly.  If the Supreme Court gets this case - it will be about the Secretary of State not doing here job, not about whether Trump is disqualified, otherwise the the Secretary will be forced to remove Trump and then it goes to Congress instead to remove the bar to office, which is not likely due the 2/3 vote required to do so.  Anything else is unconstitutional by the Supreme court and I think the right lawyers are on this case to do so.

On September 8, 2023 in "Lights   On  with Jessica Dension"  found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8Fm88NWdAM is an interview with  lead counsel in the Colorado suit, where both the Secretary of State agrees Trump "engaged in insurrection" in a written statement and Lawrence Tribe states it is the best drafted suit on a chance to accomplish to goal of barring Trump from the ballot.  The interview makes some points not considered.  But still no one speaks to or explains the final sentence of Section 3 which tends to indicate the courts have limited or no jurisdiction and instead Section 3 of the 14th amendment is self executing.

With that said, the case already off the rails by Trump having Removed it to Federal Court.  See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUxfYrJjEDE

The next morning September 8, 2023 on Morning Joe on MSNBC there is discussion as to whether it is time for Biden to engage Trump.  The frustration of Trump's unabashedly craziness which is just overt stupidity and lack of intelligence is wearing thin on people in the media news cycle.   You be the judge after watching at  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYVoUove7I0 but we say "never argue with a fool as listeners cannot tell which is which".  In the Alex Wagner clip above Trump admits the insurrectionists are the ones "who [tried to] rugged the election", and of course he means the magical non-existant "sealers" of the election from him, but in reality he is talking about himself and his cohorts legally.

Finally Judge J. Michael Luttig explains why Jack Smith could not charge under insurrection at 18 USC 2383 at about 8 minutes into  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecjvi8XtM00 and here describes how these actions of Trump and his cohorts are "grave crimes" at.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWHyoZnQZyc

NOTE: See this page on "quo warranto"  at https://www.pogo.org/resource/2023/01/quo-warranto-processes-states-and-... To bring an action against a Congress person under Section 3 of the 14th amendment, you need to build a tight argument for the involvement of that person in the ongoing insurrection.  For instance in Wisconsin Wis Stats 784.04(1)(b) applies for State officers and each state has its own law.  You can find it at. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/784/06 and scroll up.

The original 2022 CREW lawsuit in New Mexico which removed Couy Griffin from office with all documents is found hosted also  at https://www.justsecurity.org/86307/tracker-litigation-and-legislation-on...

In comments under some Section 3 oriented posts on YouTube, people remark how certain members of Congress should be removed from office.  Well thanks to the Constitution and the Republicans being the ongoing party of insurrection still attached to Trump, they can be.  Using a failure to their oath of office to show them attempting to break or rebel against the laws of the United States sued in even Federal Court on quo warranto to remove them for insurrectionist acts and giving "aid and comfort" to an ongoing insurrectionist movement.  The interesting thing is that they can be sued to remove them from office by anyone, not only their constituents.  They can be sued even in DC Federal Court having been found there.  Acts of obstruction of Congress like Marjorie Green saying she would support Trump even if he is in jail, and how she will not vote to fund the government without an impeachment inquiry attached, and even Tommy Tubberville holding up military appropriates for his abortion crusade qualify.  Even those who will note vote to abolish the Fillibuster could be said to fall under Jack Smiths count 4 of the DC Trump indictment because a 60/40 vote split disenfranchises voters representation in Congress.  You would need deep pockets to take that swing.  But the beauty is their constituents cannot save them in such a quo warranto action.  It is literally the same thing brought in New Mexico against Mr. Griffin ( See Exhibit A)  but for a sitting  Congressman in Federal Court in DC.  They have Trump to thank and their own stupidity for continuing to follow and support him as the leader of the Republican party.  Watch the full 2 hour 45 minute interview of Judge J. Michael Luttig and he describes how the Republican party today is one operating  in insurrection at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9YrPe2Vr84 

Frankly the only way out of this is to complete the National Popular Vote Effort Compact by converting Florida, Missouri and Ohio with State Constitutions to join it.  There are websites ready for anyone to step up and file for the petitions.  See https://nationalpopularvote-florida.com and https://nationalpopularvote-missouri.com and https://nationalpopularvote-ohio.com so visit  https://gov-shout.com/Register_to_vote_in_the_polls and leave a message at checkout if you live in one of those states and are interested in doing so to file the petitions.  Arizona and michigan are also needed, and once someone files for the intiative in those states a website domain will be setup for them. A $2.00 fee is charged because it si the only way to verify who you are and your address.  It will not be disclosed to anyone by us.

So what is wrong with the Republicans??  Well sadly they are best described as indoctrinated delusional.  Everything about the Republicans of today is about beliefs, many call conspiracy theories and faith.  It is all really best described here in a film called "The God Delusion" which is a factual documentary at  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzZh2wstj88  Nothing wrong with religion to teach morals, but mystery has no place in a government. Yet the gullible and dim witted flock together around someone who claims to be divine fighting a holy war.  Mr Trump is trying to take on this air and some blindly follow him even to their demise and death even.  Belief without fact is poison to the brain.  Most people will agree a human in a closed garage with a running vehicle will kill the human., but if you ask them if the Earth is a closed system could the same thing happen to mankind, you will get all kinds of faith based answers. So this is how Republicans do not believe global warming is real and will harm mankind.  They are pro life but when you ask who will raise the unwanted child, there is usually no answer.  This is delusional half baked thinking.

In New Hampshire you might instead of the first paragraph cite:

New Hampshire shire Revised Stats at  655:17 Declaration of Candidacy

requires the candidate swear " . . . .  and that, if elected, I will be qualified for and will assume the duties of said office. except the Candidate is disqualified by the US Constitution at Section 3 of the 14th Amendment as shown herein. .   and specifically for the Presidential Primary the oath states as found at https://www.sos.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt561/files/inline-documents/so... ". . .  swear under penalties of perjury that I am qualified to be a candidate . . . " and since New Hampshire  Election Code Section 652:13 defines a  “federal election” shall also include any presidential primary election, the disqualification clause of the US Constitution at Section 3 of the 14th Amendment applies and bars the Candidate from appearing on the ballot for having "engaged in insurrection"again as shown herein.  Federal Election law thus mandates Donald Trump not appear on the ballot.

In Florida you might instead the first paragraph cite

Pursuant to Florida Statutes 99.021(2) Candidate Trump cannot meet the requirements of the Oath as thus in part 

". . .   ; that he or she is qualified under the Constitution and laws of the United States to hold the office to which he or she desires to be nominated or elected; . . . "

Due the fact he is barred by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment as shown herein  ""

[end Florida argument]

The Florida Stats for Electrons is found in searchable pdf at https://files.floridados.gov/media/699702/election-code.pdf

In Georgia you might change the first paragraph to cite:

In Maine  you would cite Title 21-A section 355 and 356

Candidate Trump cannot meet the  section 355(1)  "statutory and constitutional" requirements having been disqualified by Section 3 of the 14th amendment as shown herein

 Clause 3 of Section 355  requires the Secretary scrutinize any legal argument to the required declaration as such...

In Texas you might cite  instead as the first paragraph :

MSNBC on August  26, 2023 posted to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taU_Ig7Rb1Q an interview with Dean Obiedallah who is an MSNBC contributor and attorney an overview of his efforts you can find posted at https://deanobeidallah.substack.com/p/I-filed-a-complaint-to-disqualify which has a simple letter he says you can cut and paste to use in an email to a Secretary of state.

 The problem is Secretaries of State only consider general public email unofficial communications.  Plus it has some links which do not take the reader to the meat of the question.  Further many secretary of state use a form email submission which destroy any links anyway..  The sample pdf you should change the first line arguing state law in this example Iowa - to your state and laws you need to look up and research yourself.  If you don't then the Secretary of state will not look up law to help you.  The sample pdf and language is drafted to make the Secretary of state take it seriously.  In short it needs to be mailed to them with an original signature (blue ink is best)  and make a real legal argument they have a duty to pay attention to.

For a. Person in an office they swore an Oath to hold then a quo warranto action is filed against them with the disciplinary authority if one exists, and if none then an action in a state court usually unless you are making federal claims then in federal court possibly as a parallel suit as mixed criminal civil.  For that you need an attorney using a similar argument below.  This is a rare moment in time because the  "aid and comfort" provision applies through Trump whom they follow and encourage who remains "engaged in insurrection". See clause 7 exhibit A in sample below.

There is  a PDF attached you can download and change the first paragraph to whatever your state's election code is for ineligibility or disqualification and it can print double sided end to end (not side to side)  double stapled at the top,  and it will mail for 1 oz or 1 STAMP as five pages which is one ounce.

Here is the pasted text you can copy and paste to a word processor if you prefer and the Exhibits are 5 pages you then stack onto it.  This is set to stay at 5 pages so that 10 pages double sided end to end comes out printed properly. IF YOU GO THE WORD PROCESSOR ROUTE, YOU WILL HAVE FORMATTING PROBLEMS to fit five pages

You could sign it John or Jane Q Public to remain anonymous, but you would need to keep proof you sent it like a copy maybe to a local newspaper letters to the editor with pictures of the envelopes as mailed and  copy of any printing receipt from a Staples or Fedex along with you email sending them the document for printing to prove it was you who sent it if you want to file suit later.  It will only cost you $2.00 to send for printing and mailing.  By all means if you are working with an attorney take it or send it  to them first.

Download the PDF full version through https://tinyurl.com/34uwswzx

Download the Exhibits only through https://tinyurl.com/3vsu2jpr

REQUEST TO REMOVE PASTE STARTS

 [Date]

Secretary of State Elections

[Address – available from state website]

[Suite or room number if any]

[City State and Zip]

REQUEST TO REMOVE AND BAR DONALD JOHN TRUMP FROM BALLOT

PER SECTION 3 OF THE 14^TH AMENDMENT TO THE US CONSTITUTION

State election Code Law requires a declaration that if the candidate is nominated and elected the candidate will qualify by taking the oath of office, except Donald John Trump is now barred by the automatic self  execution of  Section 3 of the 14th amendment

Judge Luttig video saying how it should be prosecuted at https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wX1dgHvr59k&t=360s  That Colorado ruling is actually under 18 USC 2383 which also works to bar office.  See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_2U53cUTy8

Who I am is unimportant and I submit this in camera as John Q. Public because Trump supporters have illustrated how mentally imbalanced they are to following the law and prefer to attack and threaten others who do, but I am a US Citizen with standing.

Section 3 of the 14th amendment self executes on the public record of a person being "engaged in insurrection" The consideration of defined acts of insurrection under 18 USC 2383 by a Grand Jury that returns an indictment on charges of those  acts of insurrection is conclusive that the defendant was "engaged in insurrection"  is all that section 3 of the 14th amendment requires to execute and create a Constitutional duty of election officials to ban any placement of the identified person that was shown by the public record to have been "engaged in insurrection" to be and is automatically barred from being eligible to be placed on any ballot.  Many election laws disqualify also a candidate who cannot be under indictment for a moral turpitude charge and be an eligible candidate, also they must certify they are eligible to hold office if elected.  Absent a clearance by the US Congress in this case the person "engaged in insurrection" is barred.  J. Michael Luttig in MSNBC interview August 22, 2023 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWHyoZnQZyc is clear this is the Secretary of State Duty.  It can be said the founding fathers anticipated the day when an authoritarian personality would command a blind following to destroy the government and thus to avoid a Civil War II Section 3 of the 14th amendment would be needed.  Some argue voters today have been brainwashed into a cult.  See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAmvcxVIzkc

 On Saturday August 19, 2023 MSNBC   did an extensive interview with Judge J. Michael Luttig and Professor Lawrence Tribe addressing "The Sweep and Force of Section Three" a Law Review article referenced below  in a discussion of their subsequent  article written published in "The Atlantic" published online that morning at 16 minutes into  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PndXVq3zF4c which is a third party post states clearly Secretaries of State have a duty to bar Trump from ballots.  MSNBC itself posted an  interview of Judge Luttig and Professor Tribe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PndXVq3zF4c at 6 minutes in Lawrence Tribe begins his discussion and at 7:45 declares the Secretary of  State enforces Section 3 of the 14th amendment.  In the MSNBC posted version J. Michael Luttig makes the Secretary of State arguments beginning at 11 minutes in starting at 12 minutes in they are obligated to make the  determination the candidate was "engaged in  insurrection" . Apparently either one or the other must have been  edited before posting to YouTube. Sadly the reality is these two scholars use too many slow moving words to bury the lead.  The Atlantic article is at https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/donald-trump-constitutionally-prohibited-presidency/675048/

Then on August 20, 2023 a third party YouTube channel posts a CNN interview at  of Gloria Browne-Marshall  at 2 minutes in a Law Professor at John Jay College of Criminal justice in New York city, who  takes her stab at explaining what Judge Luttig and Professor Tribe just explained, but concluded that the matter ends up before the US  Supreme Court; but she is wrong in that the matter is circularly self executing ending only before Congress.  What happens is upon the public record anyone who fails to remove Trump from the ballot themselves become embroiled by the command of Section 3 as to engaged in insurrection. In essence a co-conspirator.  This office would thus fall to such a fate also if Trump is not removed.

The frontline of  saving the US Democracy will be the Secretaries of  State to keep insurrectionists and those giving "aid and comfort" thereto off the ballots. Judge J. MICHEAL Luttig  in his Frontline interview spoke throughout how this is a Constitutional crisis and at 1 hour 40  minutes in of the 2 hour 45 minute interview stated the country is near destruction if these people are not stopped  at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9YrPe2Vr84 and MSNBC on "Weekends with Jonathan Capehart" had guests who sounded the same alarm, and these were both  a year ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxI3MFaQn9g

Section 3 of the 14th amendment provides the common sense tool to bar people from office who want to destroy the "more perfect union" and it is as simple as barring people from the ballot who have gotten into office and are trying to destroy law from within, as well as those who have not yet but indicate that they will under 18 USC 2383.  This office must do its Constitutional duty and command.  For instance Vivek Ragaswa speaks regularly in terms of insurrective ambitions.  At 4 minutes into the August 31, 2023 show of "Morning Joe" found on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUhFElnFYec indicates he is living in insurrection which brings the the "or laws" and "giving aid and comfort thereto" bars Ragaswamy from holdong office also.

The sooner candidates are notified they are barred, the sooner the country can stop talking about something that will not be and the sooner candidate will realize their message and thinking is inappropriate for our Republic.

1.    Donald Trump remains yet “engaged in insurrection”  with others unlawful activity ignoring and running for the presidency as Section 3 of the 14^th Amendment self executes and bars him from holding office ever again.  Ari Melber an attorney and MSNBC host of his own show postulated through public record proof on August 31, 2023 how the Trump lead  insurrection is ongoing at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFKwBnDEkf0. Then these rump following people are in so deep, they are providing "aid and comfort" to the ongoing insurrection documented at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8ZSx0h-dWE and   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUhFEInFYec. The only mention of me tall illness in the Constitution is the 25th amendment Section 4, but when candidates speak in seditious and insurrective terms that is a disqualification.

2.    In filed indictment actions, though the Government has not charged under 18 USC 2383 it has defined that Mr. Trump was “engaged in insurrection” in the four counts charged and summarized at the bottom of page 2 of the DC indictment seeking to violate Government laws it calls “the government function” as thus:

Each of these conspiracies—which built on the widespread mistrust the Defendant was creating through pervasive and destabilizing lies about election fraud—targeted a bedrock function of the United States federal government: the nation's process of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of the presidential election ("the federal government function").

3.    18 USC 2383 defines insurrection in part as

“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.”

4.    Mr. Trump in each count of this indictment meets the legal definition of  “engages in any insurrection or rebellion” of the “laws thereof”.

5.    Without being charged under 18 USC 2383 still, the US Constitution at Section 3 of Amendment 14 of the US Constitution now bars Trump in his qualification for a second term in office as thus:^[1] that any person who “or as an officer of the United States”, “ . . .  shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the” [United States]

6.    Note that section 3 of the 14^th Amendment does not require, charging with, or conviction of, but ONLY “engaged in insurrection”

7.    Previous courts have found that Section 3 of the 14^th amendment is truly self executing and was won regarding January 6, 2021 in New Mexico as a quo warranto case which is found at https://www.citizensforethics.org/legal-action/lawsuits/lawsuit-filed-to-remove-couy-griffin-from-office/ (CREW) website that has all documents and the final decision of which was a quo warranto lawsuit and the first and 27^th page of the 45 page ruling is attached as Exhibit A which defines how the court viewed the acts of insurrection.

8.    More importantly the day before the DC indictment court held its August 10, 2023 hearing, on August  9, 2023, a pre review law review article entitled The Sweep and Force of Section Three, 172 U. PA. L. REV. (forthcoming 2024) by William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen was posted to the SSRN Network at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751#:~:text=Section%20Three%20of%20the%20Fourteenth,not%20been%20appreciated%20or%20enforced. (or tinyurl at => https://tinyurl.com/4ce6ef33 ) The first and 121st page only of which is attached hereto because it is a 126 page Law Review Article as Exhibit B.

9.    In The Sweep and Force of Section Three  analysis of the 2020 election issues begins at page 111 and then addresses Trump at 117 and finally at 121 it is written

The bottom line is that Donald Trump both “engaged in” “insurrection or rebellion” and gave “aid or comfort” to others engaging in such conduct, within the original meaning of those terms as employed in Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. If the public record is accurate, the case is not even close. He is no longer eligible to the office of Presidency, or any other state or federal office covered by the Constitution. All who are committed to the Constitution should take note and say so.

10.  I bring this to this office’s attention, because while no court has an insurrection  “charge” before it under 18 USC 2383, it can declare the definition of 18 USC 2383 is met in the indictment counts and averments.

11. On August 15, 2023 the State of Georgia by its Fulton County District Attorney indicted Trump under RICO for specific acts “engaged in insurrection”  Lawrence O'Donnell does a cursory review of it on his MSNBC show at  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n19WDyQhKc  and at this writing the New York times is hosting a full version for download at https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/georgia-indictment-trump/daed97d37562a76f/full.pdf   It appears it is largely the January 6th House Select Committee final report re- drafted as a Georgia RICO Complaint as an indictment. This satisfies Section 3 of the 14^th Amendment US Constitution  directly as  Public Record Notice first page attached Exhibit C.   

12. Application of barring Trump from ballots is a State function, and upon the records this office must declare indictments define insurrection.

13. Again it must be argued for Section 3 to apply no conviction or charges is required for the law to execute and this courts duty to enforce and protect and defend the US constitution as it is written.

14. Defendant Trump could be ordered to cease more lies to the American people in ignoring his duty to recognize the bar to his running for office and that Mr. Trump should apply immediately to Congress for the relief he seeks to run for office again.

15. On August 11, 2023 MSNBC had caught word of the posted filing and I saw Noah Bookbinder CEO of CREW on All in with Chris Hayes at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mm2jh5Rr9M at 2 minutes 30 seconds in and then Joy Reid also did a big segment with Lawrence Tribe at 4 minutes 40 seconds in at  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Et6qB7fTFM

16. Noah Bookbinder also remarked how in this case  the procedure is to Request the Removal of Trump from the ballot before being placed on it in the first place by moving the Secretary of State to do so..

17. For instance, California Elections Code (ELEC) requires an affidavit of the candidate at 8550(a) (5) “That, if elected, the candidate will qualify for the office.”

18. Further at 8550(c) states “The name of a candidate shall not be placed on the ballot unless the declaration of candidacy provided for in this section has been properly filed.”

19. This state has similar language in its candidate affidavit, that Donald John Trump (Trump) cannot meet this requirement but by perjury.

20.  This office now has a US Constitutional Duty to Remove Trump from the Ballot

21. Several Republican candidates are now saying Trump is disqualified, as Asa Hutchinson, Mike Pence and Chris Christie, but none can seem to cite the Constitution as they must not have read it.  Geoff Duncan ex lt gov (R) of Georgia however takes a strong stance that Trump should end his campaign.  See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xg_uCqFnkw0 

22. The events of January 6, 2021, and the House of Representatives Special Committee known as the January 6^th Committee and its 245 page final report as public record was  then followed by Jack Smith as DOJ special counsel gave rise to  indictments against Trump which detail his insurrective acts of insurrection.

23. Again and most importantly as The Sweep and Force of Section Three  shows the 14th  amendment does not require charging or  conviction of insurrection but only participation as in be “engaged in”,  and as used in the amendment "insurrection" thus means only participation in insurrective acts. Charging by the DOJ is sufficient and guilt or innocence thereafter  does not excuse the effect of the amendment which only Congress can do by a 2/3 vote to excuse such "disability" 

24. This is as constitutionally valid a bar as if the candidate was not  of 35 years of age for the office of presidency of the United States.  No Federal Court would have jurisdiction over state election laws.  See CHIAFALO ET AL. v. WASHINGTON, locatable on the web as 19-465_i425.pdf. (US Supreme Court  No. 19–465.  Argued May 13, 2020—Decided July 6, 2020) 

25. To fail to remove Trump from the ballot as the election code requires creates violations of Civil Rights to United States Citizens and US Constitutional Violations.

 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of Iowa the forgoing is true and correct  signed this___  day of _____________  2023

_________________________

John Q. Public

\

PROPOSED ORDER

TO DONALD JOHN TRUMP

 BE IT ORDERED AND RESOLVED

Donald John Trump is removed and barred from any ballot of this State until such time he can present a removal of such disability by a 2/3 vote from both houses of Congress. 

The Public Record of the House Select Committee, aka the January 6th committee and his Federal indictments relating thereto his actions while President and his State indictment on RICO charges for election overthrow interference attempts are sufficient record to activate the self executing provision of Section 3 of the 14th amendment is sufficient to define under 18 USC 2383 that Donald John Trump was "engaged in insurrection" against the laws thereof and the United States.  As a duty to the oath of this office now a duty under Section 3 of the 14th amendment  of the US Constitution Donald John Trump is removed and barred  from any ballot of this state. 

^[1] The entire Amendment reads as thus : 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.