12ft | These 2 conservative federalist society constitutional lawyers think so. As students of the United States Constitution for many decades—one of us as a U.S. Court of Appeals judge, the other as a professor of constitutional law, and both as constitutional advocates, scholars, and practitioners—we long ago came to the conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment, the amendment ratified in 1868 that represents our nation’s second founding and a new birth of freedom, contains within it a protection against the dissolution of the republic by a treasonous president. This protection, embodied in the amendment’s often-overlooked Section 3, automatically excludes from future office and position of power in the United States government—and also from any equivalent office and position of power in the sovereign states and their subdivisions—any person who has taken an oath to support and defend our Constitution and thereafter rebels against that sacred charter, either through overt insurrection or by giving aid or comfort to the Constitution’s enemies. “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.” “The bottom line is that Donald Trump both “engaged in” “insurrection or rebellion” and gave “aid or comfort” to others engaging in such conduct, within the original meaning of those terms as employed in Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. If the public record is accurate, the case is not even close. He is no longer eligible to the office of Presidency, or any other state or federal office covered by the Constitution”
Well, we know lawyers are never wrong. I don't want Trump to be President or even the Republican nominee, but I would think you are innocent until proven guilty.
I hear you. Innocent until proven guilty is only a presumption for the accused in criminal trials. Luttig & Tribe's argument (and that of the two conservative lawyers who first made this argument) is about constitutional eligibility under the 14th Amendment.
It might, but my outlook is absent a disqualifying conviction or Congress passing a law, he should be able to run. I don't want random government bureaucrats having the power to disqualify presidential candidates based on their whims.
FWIW, William Baude, one of the professors who wrote the law review article, is big in the FedSoc and a scholar that the Republican majority listens to.
"The disqualification clause operates independently of any such criminal proceedings and, indeed, also independently of impeachment proceedings and of congressional legislation. The clause was designed to operate directly and immediately upon those who betray their oaths to the Constitution, whether by taking up arms to overturn our government or by waging war on our government by attempting to overturn a presidential election through a bloodless coup." If true, that would be absurd. Who gets to make that determination? If all it takes is some important person somewhere saying that this person attempted an insurrection or rebellion against the United States, that seems awfully dangerous to our democratic system would it not? If providing "aid or comfort" to our enemies disqualifies one from being President, every Democratic President since Carter should have been disqualified.
Yes, clearly the 14th Amendment was written in as a way to libel your opposition opponent and prevent him/her from running for the presidency. You don't actually need any burden of proof. Just speak into existence and bam! There goes your leading oppo candidate. NexT?
Yep. Who determines guilt and who enforces it? The article uses the term "self-executing." My question is "by whom?" Who makes this a reality and how?
The game is clearly throw everything at the wall to prevent this guy from being President, free country and democracy be damned. The lengths that this regime has gone towards removing an election from the hands of the people is something I thought I'd never see in America. Unfortunately, this won't be the last time.
