The Constitution bars Trump from holding public office ever again

[Synthaholic]

I believe there was

But you're an imbecile.

 

[Mac-7]

But you're an imbecile.

And you are just a hate-filled lib who emotes rather than reason

 

[JoeB131]

I believe there was

I know, man, those darkies got to vote this time!

 

[Mac-7]

I know, man, those darkies got to vote this time!

Why do you hate blacks enough to call them “darkies?”

Playing the race card wont intimidate whites into accepting voter fraud

 

[JoeB131]

Why do you hate blacks enough to call them “darkies?”

Playing the race card wont intimidate whites into accepting voter fraud

I know, you hate the fact they are voting... You probably think Birth of a Nation had a happy ending

 

[Mac-7]

I know, you hate the fact they are voting... You probably think Birth of a Nation had a happy ending

You are a terrible liar

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Legally speaking, this won't go anywhere any time soon. The problem is enforcement; until some official body takes it up, it will remain confined to Twitter outrage, and how can any official body impose a legal restriction on him while he is still innocent until proven guilty? I don't see that happening until/unless he is found actually-guilty of one or more of the charges in DC or Georgia.

Politically, it's pretty wonky and technical, but the fact that it was conservative Federalist Society lawyers that said it could sway some moderate conservatives away.

This reminds me of how historians later looked back at the post-Civil War law Congress passed that prevented then-President Johnson from firing anyone in his cabinet without their approval first. It was blatantly unconstitutional, but while we can look back and realize that now, it was still passed and it took effect at the time. This seems like it's going to be the same kind of thing.

I agree and tend to believe this will not happen, and should not happen, although the Secretaries of State in Nevada, Georgia, Michigan and Georgia have been in touch and are discussing the issue. They are all well aware of the import of taking action.

If any such action were initiated, they would probably try to act collectively, aware that there would instantly be suits opposing their action if they simply tried to deny Trump a position on their state ballots, and the USSC would probably immediately take up the issue.

The 14th Amendment sets up, as it were, an automatic disqualification for “aiding and abetting” or initiating an insurrection, without specifying who determines what constitutes these activities. So the two conservative Constitutional scholars argue that any Secretary of State can simply determine that a candidate violated this part of the 14th, just as he might decide the candidate does not meet the Constitutional “age requirement” or “native born status” requirement.

Of course all this fits well into the whole electoral “states rights” authority that Repubs push and indeed will probably push further, maybe soon proposing that legislatures they control decide on elector slates and not popular elections. This may happen in the future in “red states” where Repubs fear they may be losing a presidential vote … and that would be reactionary and undemocratic and a place I believe we Americans should move away from, not towards, even though it too is “constitutionally legal” if states so choose.

Of course what is now being discussed seems like what Trump Republicans would definitely try to do if they had such a clear Constitutional mandate and the Dems had done what Trump did, but I expect it will not (and should not) come to that in this case — unless of course the Supreme Court expressed prior agreement, which I assume is extremely unlikely.

 

[JoeB131]

You are a terrible liar

I agree... the problem is....

 

[Kilroy2]

The Constitution bars Trump from holding public office ever again

While some on the right portray accountability for the Jan. 6 Capitol riot as just another partisan dispute,]two prominent conservative legal scholars have made the case that the Constitution disqualifies former President Trump from public office.

Last week, law 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 — argued in a law review article that Trump is already constitutionally forbidden from serving in public office because of Section Three of the 14th Amendment.

MSN

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal consequences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.

First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, 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.” 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.

The Sweep and Force of Section Three

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range

papers.ssrn.com

Now if you want to play word games, 1-6 was most certainly a rebellion. And trump was the organizer. Therefore, he is ineligible to run for president. And these ain't no liberal woke activist judges saying this.

THEY ARE CONSERVATIVES AND THEY ARE SAYING THAT TRUMP IS CONSTITUTIONALLY INELIGIBLE FOR OFFICE.

Checkmate

I would agree but unfortunately an intellectual argument is not going to persuade Trump supporters who will become more belligerent in their support of TRump as it is no longer an intellectual argument with them but personal perceptions or bias. Easily persuaded by ridiculous statements by the TRump argument and his supporters.

They may try to protest or riot but hopefully the response can be a little bit more forceful.

 

[Pellinore]

I agree and tend to believe this will not happen, and should not happen, although the Secretaries of State in Nevada, Georgia, Michigan and Georgia have been in touch and are discussing the issue. They are all well aware of the import of taking action.

If any such action were initiated, they would probably try to act collectively, aware that there would instantly be suits opposing their action if they simply tried to deny Trump a position on their state ballots, and the USSC would probably immediately take up the issue.

The 14th Amendment sets up, as it were, an automatic disqualification for “aiding and abetting” or initiating an insurrection, without specifying who determines what constitutes these activities. So the two conservative Constitutional scholars argue that any Secretary of State can simply determine that a candidate violated this part of the 14th, just as he might decide the candidate does not meet the Constitutional “age requirement” or “native born status” requirement.

Of course all this fits well into the whole electoral “states rights” authority that Repubs push and indeed will probably push further, maybe soon proposing that legislatures they control decide on elector slates and not popular elections. This may happen in the future in “red states” where Repubs fear they may be losing a presidential vote … and that would be reactionary and undemocratic and a place I believe we Americans should move away from, not towards, even though it too is “constitutionally legal” if states so choose.

Of course what is now being discussed seems like what Trump Republicans would definitely try to do if they had such a clear Constitutional mandate and the Dems had done what Trump did, but I expect it will not (and should not) come to that in this case — unless of course the Supreme Court expressed prior agreement, which I assume is extremely unlikely.

All good points. Enforcement of this in practice would have to be on the state level; if a few swing states with Democratic leadership (Pennsylvania, for example) were to bar him from the ballot, it would certainly get to the state Supreme Court(s) right away. I am inclined to think that the USSC would refuse the case on Tenth Amendment grounds, but who knows. Assuming it holds, the state GOP would have to nominate a different candidate, or possibly the national GOP would re-nominate overall, and it could go anywhere from there.

Regardless, I'd be concerned at that point with the reaction of the people. I would absolutely expect to see riots at least, and probably a body count. The fear of that alone would inspire a lot of the decision-makers to let it slide, in the interests of public safety.

I think the most realistic effect of this is to push some fence-sitters away from Trump at the ballot boxes. Even if it's just a fraction of a percent of Undecideds, that could be enough to sway a state or two.

 

[LuckyDuck]

trump has NEVER received the most popular votes.

The problem with the so-called scholars is that he didn't commit or incite an insurrection or rebellion on January 6th.

 

[Rogue AI]

What other opinions of the Federalist Society are liberals pining over? Either way, the 14th never mentions the presidency, so this opinion is moot.