Disqualification Not
In this opinion piece regarding the Mar-a-Lago search, the author writes:
"One of the potential law violations, under Section 2071 of the federal penal code, includes in its penalty provisions that, upon conviction, a defendant “shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.” The ongoing proceedings implicating Trump – in particular, the Justice Department’s investigation and the House January 6 committee probe – seem geared toward undermining his capacity to seek the presidency again in 2024. Obviously, then, there is speculation that DOJ may be mobilizing now in order to trigger the Section 2071 disqualification.
"I doubt that. The Justice Department well knows that the qualifications for a presidential candidate are set out in the Constitution."
I agree with this writer. I learned today that this constitutional question was ruled on by a court years ago. It is highly unlikely that an unconstitutional provision in Section 2071 would prevail today. Like the author, I believe the Justice Department knows that, and for that reason would be unconcerned about that section. While there may be Democrats who want to assert otherwise, the law is not on their side.
In this opinion piece regarding the Mar-a-Lago search, the author writes:
"One of the potential law violations, under Section 2071 of the federal penal code, includes in its penalty provisions that, upon conviction, a defendant “shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.” The ongoing proceedings implicating Trump – in particular, the Justice Department’s investigation and the House January 6 committee probe – seem geared toward undermining his capacity to seek the presidency again in 2024. Obviously, then, there is speculation that DOJ may be mobilizing now in order to trigger the Section 2071 disqualification.
"I doubt that. The Justice Department well knows that the qualifications for a presidential candidate are set out in the Constitution."
I agree with this writer. I learned today that this constitutional question was ruled on by a court years ago. It is highly unlikely that an unconstitutional provision in Section 2071 would prevail today. Like the author, I believe the Justice Department knows that, and for that reason would be unconcerned about that section. While there may be Democrats who want to assert otherwise, the law is not on their side.
..... the raid at trumps home proves the Democrats have nothing.
