The constitutional case that Donald Trump is already banned from being president
The constitutional case that Donald Trump is already banned from being president
Two conservative lawyers make a strong 14th Amendment argument. But the politics of their theory are very, very dicey.
I hereby officially declare Donald J. Trump ineligible to hold office, under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.
There, I fucking did it. Challenge me in court, you orange bastard.
When the federalist society is involved, in any capacity, you have to pause and see the bigger picture. A key player in/around that org is leonard leo. If you're not aware, Leo is in and around the stories of all of the conservative justices on the Supreme Court - including being a key facilitator in the recent overt corruption stories with thomas and alito (he's also the name that funnels money to "ginny" thomas, clarence thomas' batshit insane, Jan 6th supporting wife.
So this (from the article) is likely closer to the actual point of them publishing, to sow doubt and discord:
"But as a matter of politics, encouraging state election officials to go rogue and kick Trump off the ballot is a recipe for disaster. And that disconnect, between what the law says and the practical barriers to implementing it, speaks to some deep problems in American democracy that led to Trump’s insurrection in the first place."
They want that chaos. These aren't your friends and allies.
If they get the Trump ruled out, they can start claiming all dems engage in insurrection and have the supreme court uphold it.
It is important to note that trump still has the right to due process under s2 of the 14th, and will probably be the grounds for dismissal if there isn’t some sort of court hearing.
The NM case probably sets some precedent saying he doesn’t have to be convicted …. But I have no confidence in SCROTUS
I would love to see it happen but will remain pessimistic. It seems all the wealthy people get away with whatever they want.
I think, the problem is, somebody needs to challenge his elligibility in each and every state.
Like this guy:
It's not an AUTOMATIC disqualification, it still needs to be adjudicated... At least in enough states to take away 270 electoral votes.
It's not an AUTOMATIC disqualification, it still needs to be adjudicated
I might have mistaken what was written, but the scholars in the paper explicitly point out section 3 is 'self-executing'. ~Which means it does not require adjuducation.~ I was mistaken, see comment below.
If it happened before, that doesn't mean it was necessary.
"Self-executing" there means that the Constitutional prohibition doesn't require Congress to pass a law on the subject.
Some Constitutional provisions do require Congressional action to take effect. For instance, the income tax is authorized by the Sixteenth Amendment, but the amendment does not itself create an income tax; it just tells Congress that it may do so.
(The original Constitution did not allow an income tax, because it expected the federal government to fund itself from tariffs and from tax assessments from the states, which were required to be proportional to population.)
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Baude and Paulsen’s paper, set to be published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, focusing on plain-language readings on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and the way its key terms were used in political discussion around the time of enactment.
If this interpretation is correct, then the legal case against Trump is fairly straightforward — all established by facts in public reporting, evidence from the January 6 committee, and the recent federal indictment.
Even if (let’s say) the members of a state board of elections think someone below the drinking age would make the best president in American history, the law is clear that such a person can’t hold office and thus can’t be permitted to run.
Every official involved in the US election system, from a local registrar to members of Congress, has an obligation to determine if candidates for the presidency and other high office are prohibited from running under Section 3.
Moreover, state election officials are not federal judges; the very existence of Griffin’s Case, however poorly reasoned, creates real doubt as to whether they are legally empowered to do what Baude and Paulsen are telling them they have to do.
Best case, there’s a write-in campaign to put Trump in the presidency, giving rise to a constitutional crisis if he won (since the Supreme Court would have ruled him ineligible in upholding the state officials’ actions).
I'm a bot and I'm open source!
I think this would be a very hard thing to enforce safely, at least in the context the lawyers say the 14th amendment is actionable. If someone like a governor or hell a county clerk were to raise an objection and attempt to prevent Trump's name from appearing on the ballots, they might have the authority to do so, but there would be challenges all the way up the chain, and pressure from voters and civilians to keep his name up, likely through threat of violence if we follow the same pattern as the 2020 elections and the insurrection.
At this point, do we risk the possibility of Trump getting a second term, or take that possibility off the table but put ourselves in another possible insurrection attempt?
I think random threats of violence from a bunch of morons who have no understanding of how the world works is still a better option than full on fascism, were he to run and win.
The smart move? Register Republican and vote for third party candidates en masse in the primary. Then throw your vote to whichever useless slug lands in the D column on your general ticket.
I wish i didn't agree with this so thoroughly.
There are already suits being prepared to send to states in order to disqualify Trump from appearing on the ballot, on the basis of the 14th Amendment, Section 3. Such a suit was partially successful in New Mexico, against a county commissioner who was convicted of trespassing for entering the Capitol building on Jan 6, 2021.
In that case, the court found that A) Jan 6 was, for the purposes of 14A S3, an "insurrection," and B), that the defendant in the suit engaged in that insurrection. The election occurred while the case was awaiting appeal, and the defendant lost, so the case is moot.
However, that Part B above is informative, in that it is most certainly not required that a defendant of such a case have been convicted of "insurrection or rebellion," only that they have engaged in the same. Where there was an insurrection, did the defendant contribute to that insurrection? Where the answer is yes, the person (who has previously held office and sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution) is disqualified from office. There is no requirement for any other legislation or legal case.
At this point, do we risk the possibility of Trump getting a second term, or take that possibility off the table but put ourselves in another possible insurrection attempt?
The possibility of Trump gaining the presidency again is more likely than there being a significantly successful insurrection or rebellion in response to his being disqualified from the ballot for the 2024 election. Furthermore, Trump's candidacy is currently all but certain - at present, he will be on the ballot in all fifty states and various territories - and the election is closer in time than any possible public turmoil in response to it. The greater likelihood of Trump being put back in office, and the nearer proximity in time of that event, means that we should be addressing that possibility, and not second guessing based on a "what if?" prediction.
Back to the process of applying 14A S3. Application does not require any court filing. Surely, a judicial order would carry more "legitimacy" with certain people, but the disqualification just is, in the same way that the disqualification for the office of president for people under age 35 just is. States have their own various processes for determining who is qualified to run for office, and who has the authority to make those decisions. Court cases are not necessary.
Practically speaking, Trump would only need to be disqualified in a handful of swing states - Georgia, Wisconsin, Arizona, Michigan all come to mind - for him to be unable to reach 270 electoral votes.
I realized this on the 6th. It's the first thing that crossed my mind when I knew what was happening. I'm not a legal scholar; I'm a mathematician, so I'm wondering how it took so long for this to happen.
he's gonna be barred from walking around freely in my Republic soon enough
I think he's ineligible for office for so many reasons but this argument is pretty weak. It just won't go anywhere other than Lincoln Project masturbation.
Why is it weak?
It relies on everyone agreeing that Trump's actions equates to insurrection. So it's assuming the conclusion.
He isn't even being charged with the crime of "insurrection." There are legal definitions of the term and he hasn't met them, according to rhe Special Counsel at least. So it's extremely hard to make the case that his actions in particular amount to disqualifying actions legally, for him.
There's easy evidence that he shouldn't be president, you just shouldn't vote for him in the primary or the general, but the bar for saying he is currently legally barred from running is so high and the argument essentially assumes the conclusion. If you assume that yes he did commit insurrection, he is barred...but how does one say that is legally the case if he has not been found guilty of that in a court of law?
This is a coping mechanism. They have to believe there's a reason for their suffering, so they invent a plan that's happening behind the scenes that they'll only understand at some vague time in the future.
For the first hundred thousand or so years of human existence, this was fine, and helped keep us from losing our shit while developing our civilization.
Now? It's highly detrimental to our ability to cope with reality.
Therapy and good friends are where it's at.
There is no greater plan. Sometimes shit just happens and you've got to deal with it to move on. That's not something to be afraid of. That's just life.
It is important to note that trump still has the right to due process under s2 of the 14th, and will probably be the grounds for dismissal if there isn’t some sort of court hearing.
The NM case probably sets some precedent saying he doesn’t have to be convicted …. But I have no confidence in SCROTUS
Perhaps one of the most utterly retarded constitutional arguments possible
I definitely don't want the guy to run, but allowing the government to decide who is allowed to run for a third of the government is a dangerous thing
We've had laws around who can run for office since the founding of the US.
You must be born in the US, you must be over 35, you must not be convicted of impeachment. You can't have tried to succeed from the US.
There are other laws that have effectively banned who can run. Most states have ballot access laws.
Rules about who can run aren't dangerous, so long as they are fair. Barring someone from participating in democracy that has tried to subvert it is more than fair.
You can’t have tried to succeed from the US.
Psst: It’s “secede”
You can't have tried to succeed from the US.
Tbf, that one was added later, for good reason.
Allowing people to run for president who have a history of attempting to subvert democracy is decidedly more dangerous. Only a few specific crimes bar you from office and they are for good reason.
The government already decides who its voters are by gerrymandering being legal. That ship sailed decades ago. So why sound the alarm over this? Concern trolling?
"This dude just assassinated all the presidential candidates and admitted it. He just said he'll run for president. Don't let the government step in, okay?"