“Immediate disqualification”: Conservative legal scholars say Constitution bars Trump from office

[aubiefifty 18,259]

 

news.yahoo.com

 

“Immediate disqualification”: Conservative legal scholars say Constitution bars Trump from office

Igor Derysh

6–7 minutes

---

Two prominent conservative legal scholars determined that former President Donald Trump is ineligible to be president under a provision in the Constitution barring people who engaged in insurrection from office.

Professors William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas — both members of the conservative Federalist Society — studied the question for more than a year and detailed their findings in an article set to be published next year in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, according to The New York Times.

"When we started out, neither of us was sure what the answer was," Baude told the outlet. "People were talking about this provision of the Constitution. We thought: 'We're constitutional scholars, and this is an important constitutional question. We ought to figure out what's really going on here.' And the more we dug into it, the more we realized that we had something to add."

The professors' conclusion, he said, is that Trump "cannot be president — cannot run for president, cannot become president, cannot hold office — unless two-thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct on Jan. 6."

While a law review article is not going to stop Trump's campaign for the White House, it could boost lawsuits arguing that he is ineligible for office under the U.S. Constitution. A New Mexico judge last year removed a county commissioner, Couy Griffin, after finding that he was disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars any person who took an oath to support the Constitution and then "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" or gave "aid or comfort" to insurrectionists. The ruling came in response to a lawsuit from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which plans to file a similar suit seeking to bar Trump.

"There are many ways that this could become a lawsuit presenting a vital constitutional issue that potentially the Supreme Court would want to hear and decide," Paulsen told the Times.

Noah Bookbinder, CREW's executive director, explained that disqualification under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is "not a punishment."

"The constitution sets out qualifications for the good of our republic," he tweeted. "Just like a 30-year-old would be disqualified from being president, Donald Trump disqualified himself when he incited insurrection."

The article similarly notes that Section 3 is "self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office."

The article argues that there is "abundant evidence" that Trump engaged in an insurrection, citing his efforts to change vote counts through threats and intimidation and urging his supporters to march on the Capitol.

"It is unquestionably fair to say that Trump 'engaged in' the Jan. 6 insurrection through both his actions and his inaction," the article said.

Steven Calabresi, a law professor at Northwestern and Yale and a founder of the Federalist Society, called the 126-page article a "tour de force."

But James Bopp Jr., an attorney who represented members of Congress whose candidacies were challenged under the provision, told the Times that the scholars "have adopted a ridiculously broad view."

Bopp successfully defended Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., in a case where a judge found that she had not taken part in or encouraged the Jan. 6 attacks after she took her oath of office on Jan. 3. But a federal appeals court ruled against a key argument in his defense of Rep. Madison Cawthorn, though that case was rendered moot after he lost his 2022 primary.

The article argues that the "full legal consequences" of Section 3 "have not been appreciated or enforced."

"It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications," the article says.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

"Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support as 'aid or comfort,'" the article's abstract said. "It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election."

Calabresi told the Times that election administrators must act.

"Trump is ineligible to be on the ballot, and each of the 50 state secretaries of state has an obligation to print ballots without his name on them," he told the outlet, adding that they may be sued if they refuse.

Trump is also facing prosecution for his role in the post-election scheme but that case and Section 3 address "completely separate questions," Baude told the Times.

"The question of should Donald Trump go to jail is entrusted to the criminal process," he said. "The question of should he be allowed to take the constitutional oath again and be given constitutional power again is not a question given to any jury."

Read more

about Section 3 of the 14th Amendment

• Democrats quietly consider using 14th Amendment to prevent Trump from running for office in 2024

• Civil rights organizations launch campaign to boot Trump from 2024 ballots

• We can stop the white-collar insurrectionists from doing it again: Here's how

• State officials told to "carry out their duty" by keeping Trump off 2024 ballot

• Watchdog group CREW wants to disqualify Trump under 14th Amendment if he runs for president again

[aubiefifty 18,259]

i agree! anyway i imagine you lawyers might have fun with this. i could be wrong tho........

[homersapien 12,245]

Members of the Federalist Society no less.

Maybe the far right is having second thoughts about authoritarianism and the future of our country?

Edited August 11, 2023 by homersapien

[aubiefifty 18,259]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Members of the Federalist Society no less.

Maybe the far right is having second thoughts about authoritarianism and the future of our country?

I cannot wait to hear the excuses on the right who like to throw the constitution out there for things like assault weapons. lets see if they uphold the constitution now...........

[arein0 1,105]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

Members of the Federalist Society no less.

Maybe the far right is having second thoughts about authoritarianism and the future of our country?

Or they don't think Trump can win the election, but will win the Republican nomination and are looking for ways out.

[Mikey 16,781]

First, Trump would have to be guilty of insurrection, which clearly he is not. Second, why are you libbies so gleeful about this speculation? I'm hoping Trump loses the primary because he will be the easiest Republican to beat. You should be hoping Trump wins out. Any of the other leading Republican candidates will mop the floor with Biden, Newsome or some similar bungler.

[aubiefifty 18,259]

8 hours ago, Mikey said:

First, Trump would have to be guilty of insurrection, which clearly he is not. Second, why are you libbies so gleeful about this speculation? I'm hoping Trump loses the primary because he will be the easiest Republican to beat. You should be hoping Trump wins out. Any of the other leading Republican candidates will mop the floor with Biden, Newsome or some similar bungler.

second..........YOU are not a constitutional scholar like these folks saying this. i thought you loved the constitution mickey? whats the matter?

[Mikey 16,781]

38 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

second..........YOU are not a constitutional scholar like these folks saying this. i thought you loved the constitution mickey? whats the matter?

The matter is that these people did not say Trump was guilty of insurrection. That little dust-up on Jan 6th wasn't any sort of insurrection. No buildings were burned, no police stations destroyed, nothing near as bad as the 2020 riots and the Dems claim those were peaceful protests. 

Find Trump guilty of insurrection first, then start crowing. FWIW, I hope the rigged legal system in DC succeeds. Any of DeSantis, Haley, Scott, Ramaswamy, Pence, etc will make a much better president than would Trump and will win by a much larger margin over any woke/wimp the Dems nominate.

[homersapien 12,245]

22 minutes ago, Mikey said:

The matter is that these people did not say Trump was guilty of insurrection. That little dust-up on Jan 6th wasn't any sort of insurrection. No buildings were burned, no police stations destroyed, nothing near as bad as the 2020 riots and the Dems claim those were peaceful protests. 

Find Trump guilty of insurrection first, then start crowing. FWIW, I hope the rigged legal system in DC succeeds. Any of DeSantis, Haley, Scott, Ramaswamy, Pence, etc will make a much better president than would Trump and will win by a much larger margin over any woke/wimp the Dems nominate.

He's not been indicted for that little "dust up" on Jan. 6.

He's been indicted for conspiracy to overturn a fair and legal election. And this time, the conspiracy charge will stick.

 

 

[Mikey 16,781]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

He's not been indicted for that little "dust up" on Jan. 6.

He's been indicted for conspiracy to overturn a fair and legal election. And this time, the conspiracy charge will stick.

 

 

But a conspiracy conviction isn't the charge that would disqualify Trump. That charge is Insurrection. Read more carefully in the future.

[homersapien 12,245]

13 minutes ago, Mikey said:

But a conspiracy conviction isn't the charge that would disqualify Trump. That charge is Insurrection. Read more carefully in the future.

Yeah, well I hope you're right.

But then, it's debatable.  From Fifty's thread on the (Federalist) lawyers:

 

"Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support as 'aid or comfort,'" the article's abstract said. "It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election."

Edited August 12, 2023 by homersapien

[DKW 86 7,910]

trump and Biden both gone, THAT is the answer. Lets return the US to real politics.