Re: FBI raid of Trump's Mar-a-Lago home won't help Democrats in 2024

[$2 Per Government Rodent]

In article <t1kbnk$33d49$9...@news.freedyn.de>
<governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Bad move FBI. Really bad move.
>

I continue to believe that establishment Democrats want former
President Donald Trump to be the Republican presidential nominee
in 2024. They calculate that a post-Capitol riot Trump,
particularly a Trump bruised by the slick made-for-TV drama
series known as the House January 6 Committee hearings, is their
best shot at electing a Democrat.

The FBI’s search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence is yet another
hardball move that Democrats figure will stoke GOP anger –
enough to get Trump nominated. From there, Democrats surmise, he
cannot win a national election, so they would retain the White
House.

But this is not a universal view on the Left.

TRUMP SAYS MAR-A-LAGO HOME IN FLORIDA 'UNDER SIEGE' BY FBI AGENTS

Many progressives, to the contrary, not only want Trump
indicted, they want him disqualified by law from seeking the
presidency. That was part of their goal in proceeding with
impeachment in the waning days of the Trump presidency, followed
by a Senate impeachment trial when he was already out of office.
One of the Constitution’s penalties for impeachment, besides
being stripped of power, is disqualification from seeking
federal office in the future.

This also explains a clause in the Democrat-controlled House’s
impeachment article, which cites Section 3 of the 14th Amendment
as part of the "Incitement of Insurrection" allegation.

Misleadingly quoted is the amendment’s provision that one who
has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against" the United
States may be disqualified from holding federal office.

In reality, this provision does not apply to "any person," as
the impeachment article asserts, but to a specified list of
federal officials. Noticeably absent from that list are the
president and vice president.

Quite apart from the fact that Trump has not been formally
accused of engaging in an insurrection or rebellion, much less
found to have done so, he is not eligible for the Section 3
disqualification. But that did not stop progressives from laying
the groundwork in the impeachment article, hoping some activist
progressive judge might be persuaded to apply the
disqualification anyway.

Now comes the latest disqualification gambit. I believe the
Justice Department’s real purpose in searching Trump’s Florida
estate is to continue trying to build a criminal case based on
the Capitol riot. But the ostensible reason for the search – the
pretext, if you will – is suspicion that Trump has mishandled
classified information. This, progressives will argue, triggers
Section 2071(b) of the federal criminal code. It prescribes a
classified information offense whose penalty includes being
"disqualified from holding any office under the United States."

It won’t work.

It is a fundamental tenet of our law that a mere statute cannot
alter or override the Constitution. That can legitimately be
done only by amending the Constitution.

Under the Constitution, the qualifications for the presidency
are minimal: one must be at least 35 years of age and a natural
born citizen. Significantly, and as noted above, the
Constitution also prescribes the conditions for disqualifying a
person from the presidency: he or she must be impeached by the
House and convicted by the Senate.

Congress has no authority to change these constitutionally
prescribed qualifications and disqualification by statute. The
Framers heavily relied on a doctrine of separation-of-powers
because they wanted the branches of government to be peers who
could check and balance each other. If Congress could set the
qualifications for the presidency by enacting a statute, then
the chief executive would be beholden to the legislative branch
– exactly the subservient relationship the Framers sought to
avoid.

There are obviously many criminal offenses that are more serious
than the one prescribed by Section 2071(b). Indeed, its maximum
three-year imprisonment penalty makes it a comparatively minor
crime even among classified information offenses – particularly
compared to the Espionage Act (Section 793), which prescribes
far more serious incarceration terms but does not contain a
disqualification provision.

It would be strange, in any event, to claim that a Section
2071(b) crime disqualified a person from seeking the presidency
even though far more egregious offenses – say, seditious
conspiracy to use force against the government and the murder of
a federal officer – do not.

There is, however, no need to argue that point. Section 2071(b)
cannot change the Constitution. To disqualify Donald Trump (or
anyone else, for that matter) from the presidency, there must be
a House impeachment followed by a Senate conviction and
disqualification verdict. End of story.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/fbi-raid-trumps-mar-a-lago-home-
help-democrats-in-2024