Congress could try barring Trump from office under 14th Amendment, but it likely won’t

Likely? Try definitely. Or did PolitiFact forget who controls the House?

Of course they won't, but damn they should.

Because of Congress’ current political makeup (Republicans control the House) — that almost certainly won’t happen by Jan. 20, when Trump will be sworn in as the 47th president.
- I was gonna say that the reaction from doing this would probably be worse than his presidency if there's absolutely no plausible deniability, but then I thought "naw fuck it, it's the rule of law, let's fucking go go go"
We actually don't know who controls the house, yet. Republicans need 7 more representatives, Democrats need 17, votes are still being counted.
- That doesn’t take effect until January
- I think we know.

Didn't the supreme court say they didn't give a fuck about the constitution?

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/what-the-supreme-court-got-wrong-in-the-trump-section-3-case

Under the Court’s approach, only Congress has the power to determine which people are to be disqualified and under what procedures—at least when it comes to candidates for federal office and officials holding those offices. The majority claims that Congress’s Section 5 power to enact “appropriate” legislation enforcing the 14th Amendment is the exclusive mode of enforcing Section 3.

There are several flaws in the Court’s analysis. The most basic is that there is no good reason to believe that Section 5 is the exclusive mode of enforcing Section 3. As the Colorado Supreme Court emphasized in its ruling, Section 5 empowers Congress to enforce not just Section 3 but also every other part of the 14th Amendment, including its protections against racial and ethnic discrimination, the Due Process Clause, and more. These other provisions are considered to be self-executing, under long-standing federal Supreme Court precedent. Section 5 legislation is not the exclusive mode of enforcement for these other parts of the amendment.

Thus, state governments and federal courts can enforce these provisions even in the absence of congressional Section 5 enforcement legislation. Otherwise, as the Colorado Supreme Court notes, “Congress could nullify them by simply not passing enacting legislation.” Why should Section 3 be any different? Monday’s Supreme Court decision doesn’t give us any good answer to that question.

As the Supreme Court ruling notes, following its landmark precedent in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), Congress’s Section 5 power is “remedial” in nature: It must be “congruent and proportional” to violations of the amendment it is intended to remedy. If Section 5 legislation is remedial in nature, including when it comes to enforcing Section 3, that implies some other entity—state governments and federal courts—has the initial responsibility for ensuring compliance with Section 3. The role of Section 5 is to remedy violations of that duty, not to be the exclusive enforcement mechanism.
- Who watches the watchmen?

The Democrats have had an entire decade to offer some kind of meaningful opposition and didn't bother. Why would they start now?

That's incorrect. There's a lot of obstruction from Republicans to allow Democrats to do anything since most decisions required 2/3rds vote to pass. Democrats could not convict Trump of impeachment with 57% of the vote since they needed more Republicans to push it over 2/3rds.
- That's just the excuse Democrapitalists have always used to maintain the status quo, even when they had a majority some years back, they still then claimed repubs held them back. It has always been their tactic to win votes, get into power, do nothing. (There are a few exceptions like Sanders, Warren, AOC, Michael Bennett, but few and far between.)

Lol, as if there aren't a million other things the fucker could be processed for. We got a...

Convicted rapist (oh sorry... "responsible for" rape, not a conviction, MY BAD!?!), someone who can't stop making sexual remarks when his daughter is next to him and was close to Epstein back in 2002, saying he was a terrific guy and even knew about his interest in women “on the young side”.
Someone that has committed more acts of treason than we could know, including: giving Putin classified documents, like lists of SS agents that are now dead. The SS has tracked down a murdered people for FAR less, the fact that he isn't on a hit list is beyond damming for the US as a "world power".
I feel like I barely even have to mention is all of his fraudulent "businesses". I mean that's the only thing he actually got convicted of, because it's so blatant and easy to do.

The fact this guy not only isn't behind bars, but isn't on a international wanted DEAD list, tells ya everything you need to know.

How do you know he isn't on the intel communities hitlist. They still have time. Vance for pres in 2025.
- What makes you think Vance wouldn't be worse? He's knee deep in Project 2025 and seems more than willing to see that through to the end.

He's eating the sections. He's eating the amendments. Of the people that live. There.

As much as I would love to see that, it would 100%, without a doubt, cause blood in the streets. Jan 6th would look like a beach vacation compared to what they would do if congress blocked it.

Should we accept that the threat of violence get in the way of justice?
- There was a window to bar him from office using a technique like this and it was before the election.
  
  Unless the theory is something substantial changed between 11/5 and now this is an absolutely awful idea.
As opposed to...blood in the streets over a four year period and then also after?
On J6 one piece of their trash was taken out and they all immediately ran. If anyone should be scared about what happened on that day it should be MAGA.
It could prevent more blood being spilled over a larger time period however. Definitely a "nuke vs ground invasion" dilemma where there are no good options.
Down. Let's fuck em up.

If they did that ud have civil war.

Don't threaten me with a good time.
- I appreciate the enthusiasm for social upheaval, but I wouldn't call a civil war a good time.

And then we get Vance. Joy.

NGL, I'm more scared of Vance than Trump.
- Then we can bitch and moan that Vance got no votes in the primary and was anointed the presidency.

No shit?

What a pointless article. Congress won't, shouldn't, and likely can't, despite what the article says.

Congress definitely can and should ban him from office but obviously won't.
I'm a little confused... Did you read it?

Yes!! Let's fight facism with facism

Enforcing the law isn't fascism. Insurrectionists aren't permitted to hold office.

Edit to add, it's not like President Vance would be any better.
- Rich people faced with repercussions, or even accountability, is fascism to their supporters.
- He was never actually charged for the insurrection though, was he? Just all the fraud, for which he’ll never be held accountable because our garbage-ass justice system had to treat him with fucking kid gloves. Not that they really bothered doing anything about the rank-and-file bootlicker scumbags who did participate, anyway.
  
  Best I can hope for now is that the fucker ends up with locked-in syndrome or something. But, to your second point, you’re right, none of it matters because Vance is a sack of human waste too.
Can you describe how preventing trump, who participated in an insurrection, from holding office is fascist?