Does the constitution prohibit Trump from serving as president?

The article is written by some of the staunchest conservatives that we have in this Country. They are not from the Biden administration.

 

I cannot begin to understand how we reconcile the fundamental backbone of due process with the article’s conclusion that the constitutional ban is auto-imposed. One cannot be stripped of the right to run for office for a crime that he denies and has never been found guilty. The very argument is an affront to our system of justice.

 

I don't know about the other guy, but Luttig is conservative, but he's a "never-Trumper" in the strongest sense of the word. The dude will impute accusations and motives on Donald Trump out of pure conjecture. It's not entirely surprising he would write a piece like this, nor would it be surprising that the fact that Trump is at issue may skew his perception dramatically here.

 

Well, due process is a constitutional guarantee, so it can be overridden by another constitutional provision. But regardless of whether that was the original intent of the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, I don't think it's a good idea to interpret this constitutional provision as self-executing.

 

The rule of law is the rule of the constitution for which all officials have an obligation, which is to say they have an obligation to interpret the constitution in executing their duties.

That's not "courts be damned" it's literally the oath they all take. Though if you can provide some binding court decision that would prohibit a state official from making such a decision were they to accept the current arguments, then by all means provide it. But you seem to be suggesting even making such as decision isn't constitutional and/or that it would be a violation of their obligation.

This to me would be a misguided understanding.

 

I would imagine it gets to the SC rapidly and appropriately

 

Agree with this. Would prefer the people retire him permanently him via the ballot or at least provide him room and board for several years.

 

Each and every election official doesn't interpret the Constitution on their own. There might be some kook that thinks any law allowing abortion is unconstitutional, that doesn't mean they can individually bar anyone who supports any degree of abortion from the ballot. That's not how the system works. The courts interpret the law, and officials are supposed to listen.

Sometimes you have undecided issues of law. And maybe this is one of those, but the same can be said about any silly legal theory that emerged two seconds ago. My question is if this is done, how would this work? If an election official removes Trump from the ballot in that state, does that disqualify any write-in votes in Trump's name?

 

Even if this is legal (which I'm more than a little skeptical that it is), to encourage this would be akin to encouraging electors in the electoral college to go rogue. Is it legal? Technically, yes. But it undermines the whole system.

 

That may be so, but he is certainly not a part of the Biden administration, nor does he seek to serve the Democratic Party.

 

Literally, the oath is to the constitution so by definition officials execute their duties within this scope...but if they exceed it, it can be challenged in courts (heck, even when they don't exceed it, people can challenge decisions). Court rulings help in many situations because they provide guidance on specific issues as it relates to how they should interpret the constitution/laws for which officials official are bound by these decisions. But there is a lot of gray area, or as you suggest "undecided issues" This situation seems to be one of those gray areas.

 

Hes now an ally to the “stop Trump” movement. His interests currently align with the Biden Administration even if he isn’t “one of them.”

 

Trump should be in jail and in no way should we risk US National Security over politics. This supersedes any Biden/Dem wish list. They will and should have to earn the Whitehouse the old-fashioned way - earn it!

 

I guess I lost your point, which I thought was the argument that the article is part of the Biden administration’s effort to interfere with an election (which is sorely ironic considering Trump actually tried to interfere with election results, although I admittedly digress). There are, as you might imagine, many people who are disgusted with Trump, and those people run the gamut of every political affiliation (other than, of course, Trumpeteers). That doesn’t mean that they are interfering with the 2024 election, it means they don’t want Trump to ever hold office.

 

Drug dealer: this isn’t law & order. It’s transaction interference

 

Prostitute: this isn’t law & order. It’s erection interference

 

Haven't studied this issue, but it appears at least one politician was removed from office based on J6. Notably, though, he hadn't just been charged but was convicted. One interesting thing with Trump here is the timing. My understanding that the J6 trial is set in March of next year and the GOP convention is scheduled in July.

New Mexico county commissioner first to be removed from office over Jan. 6

Sept 6 (Reuters) - A New Mexico county commissioner became the first public official to lose their job for participating in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol when a state judge on Tuesday ruled that the Republican violated the U.S. Constitution by engaging in an insurrection.

State District Court Judge Francis Mathew wrote in his decision that Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin, founder of a group called "Cowboys for Trump," violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution when he took part in the riot that left four people dead and 100 police officers injured, disqualifying him from holding local, state or federal office.

 

Some ways I agree, if in large part because due process is such a bedrock value. Same time, just to speculate on this underlying issue--Trump's involvement in the insurrection that led to his impeachment is in a sense what would give that "self-executing" mechanism its oomph, so to speak. And if Lutting and others are correct in their interpretation, then section 3 wasn't intended to provide due process in the first place but more simply be a mechanism that prevents certain people from holding political office for specific actions against society/govt/democracy. Anyway, I'm not saying they're right, only thinking aloud about where DP might fit in or not.

 

But if the House impeachment is the catalyst, how do we disregard the lack of conviction from the Senate? That argument, IMO, leads to the slippery slope that politicians control the rule of law on such issues, and that thought is more frightening than Trump ascending back to his throne.

 

No, the people who wrote the article are not Biden Administration, but they appear to seek the same thing when it comes to Trump.