This is a must read for anyone looking to make sense out of the history of the 14th Amendment, and how it is being asked to apply to Donald J. Trump.
Lots of people speaking about this are doing so with little to no understanding of the actual history. It's a fair and brilliant analysis, and of course like all analysis it comes down on a side. It has to. There are no two or many sides to this. Facts are facts.
The brief:
Lots of people speaking about this are doing so with little to no understanding of the actual history. It's a fair and brilliant analysis, and of course like all analysis it comes down on a side. It has to. There are no two or many sides to this. Facts are facts.
Twenty-five historians of the civil war and Reconstruction filed a US supreme court brief in support of the attempt by Colorado to remove Donald Trump from the ballot under the 14th amendment, which bars insurrectionists from running for office.
“For historians,” the group wrote, “contemporary evidence from the decision-makers who sponsored, backed, and voted for the 14th amendment [ratified in 1868] is most probative. Analysis of this evidence demonstrates that decision-makers crafted section three to cover the president and to create an enduring check on insurrection, requiring no additional action from Congress.”
Lawyers for Trump argue that the presidency is not an “office” as described in the 14th amendment, that only congressional action can stop someone from running, and that Trump did not incite an insurrection.
US historians sign brief to support Coloradoâs removal of Trump from ballot
Twenty-five civil war and Reconstruction scholars support invoking 14th amendment to bar Trump from ballot over January 6
www.theguardian.com
The brief: