I believe that Chris Christie, despite all his tough-talking bluster, is too much of a coward to do this. His ego and narcissism cannot be so large that he actually thinks he will one day be POTUS. Rationalizing to himself that he doesn't want to piss off voters who may vote for him in 2028 is delusional.
snip
With Trump’s commanding lead in the polls, and Christie and Hutchinson languishing in the single digits in Iowa, it may seem odd to suggest that they might stand the best chance of keeping Trump from regaining the White House. But that may be the case, thanks to a Reconstruction-era addition to the Constitution.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states, in brief, that no person who previously swore to support the Constitution but then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” can be allowed to hold any federal or state office. As Republican candidates for president who say they believe Trump is unfit for office, one or both of them should sue to keep him off the ballot.
During Wednesday’s debate, Hutchinson noted that he said more than a year ago that “Donald Trump was morally disqualified from being president again” because of the role he played in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. “More people are understanding the importance of that, including conservative legal scholars, who say he may be disqualified under the 14th Amendment from being President, again, as a result of the insurrection,” Hutchinson said. “And so obviously, I’m not going to support somebody who’s been convicted of a serious felony, or who is disqualified under our Constitution.”
The conservative legal scholars Hutchinson referred to include William Baude, a University of Chicago law professor, and Michael Stokes Paulsen, a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law. They wrote an upcoming law review article that not only lays out why Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is still in effect, despite Congress granting amnesty to Confederates in the late 19th century, but also why the section disqualifies Trump.
Since the draft version of their article was published on SSRN earlier this month, more voices have joined Baude and Paulsen's, including that of J. Michael Luttig, a former federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, and Laurence Tribe, an emeritus professor at Harvard Law School. Luttig and Tribe argued in The Atlantic that “this provision of our Constitution continues to protect the republic from those bent on its dissolution.” The question is how to take that legal analysis from theory into practice. It’s one that’s going to have to be answered quickly, as the first challenge to Trump’s eligibility was filed in a South Florida federal court Friday.
It's time for Chris Christie to sue Donald Trump
The former president is likely disqualified to hold public office under the 14th Amendment. One of his GOP primary opponents needs to get the ball rolling in court.snip
With Trump’s commanding lead in the polls, and Christie and Hutchinson languishing in the single digits in Iowa, it may seem odd to suggest that they might stand the best chance of keeping Trump from regaining the White House. But that may be the case, thanks to a Reconstruction-era addition to the Constitution.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states, in brief, that no person who previously swore to support the Constitution but then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” can be allowed to hold any federal or state office. As Republican candidates for president who say they believe Trump is unfit for office, one or both of them should sue to keep him off the ballot.
During Wednesday’s debate, Hutchinson noted that he said more than a year ago that “Donald Trump was morally disqualified from being president again” because of the role he played in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. “More people are understanding the importance of that, including conservative legal scholars, who say he may be disqualified under the 14th Amendment from being President, again, as a result of the insurrection,” Hutchinson said. “And so obviously, I’m not going to support somebody who’s been convicted of a serious felony, or who is disqualified under our Constitution.”
The conservative legal scholars Hutchinson referred to include William Baude, a University of Chicago law professor, and Michael Stokes Paulsen, a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law. They wrote an upcoming law review article that not only lays out why Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is still in effect, despite Congress granting amnesty to Confederates in the late 19th century, but also why the section disqualifies Trump.
Since the draft version of their article was published on SSRN earlier this month, more voices have joined Baude and Paulsen's, including that of J. Michael Luttig, a former federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, and Laurence Tribe, an emeritus professor at Harvard Law School. Luttig and Tribe argued in The Atlantic that “this provision of our Constitution continues to protect the republic from those bent on its dissolution.” The question is how to take that legal analysis from theory into practice. It’s one that’s going to have to be answered quickly, as the first challenge to Trump’s eligibility was filed in a South Florida federal court Friday.
