Conservative Case Emerges to Disqualify Trump for Role on Jan. 6

[Credence]

It's about time this has been raised and happy it is by Conservatives and from the Federalist Society, as I believe it carries more weight


Conservative Case Emerges to Disqualify Trump for Role on Jan. 6


Two law professors active in the Federalist Society wrote that the original meaning of the 14th Amendment makes Donald Trump ineligible to hold government office.

Aug. 10, 2023Updated 4:17 p.m. ET

Two prominent conservative law professors have concluded that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to be president under a provision of the Constitution that bars people who have engaged in an insurrection from holding government office. The professors are active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, and proponents of originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning.

The professors — William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas — studied the question for more than a year and detailed their findings in a long article to be published next year in The University of Pennsylvania Law Review.

“When we started out, neither of us was sure what the answer was,” Professor Baude said. “People were talking about this provision of the Constitution. We thought: ‘We’re constitutional scholars, and this is an important constitutional question. We ought to figure out what’s really going on here.’ And the more we dug into it, the more we realized that we had something to add.”

He summarized the article’s conclusion: “Donald Trump cannot be president — cannot run for president, cannot become president, cannot hold office — unless two-thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct on Jan. 6.”

A law review article will not, of course, change the reality that Mr. Trump is the Republican front-runner and that voters remain free to assess whether his conduct was blameworthy. But the scope and depth of the article may encourage and undergird lawsuits from other candidates and ordinary voters arguing that the Constitution makes him ineligible for office.

Conservative Case Emerges to Disqualify Trump for Role on Jan. 6 (Published 2023)

Two law professors active in the Federalist Society wrote that the original meaning of the 14th Amendment makes Donald Trump ineligible to hold government office.

www.nytimes.com

https://archive.ph/d43kA#selection-492.0-651.362

 

[washunut]

It's about time this has been raised and happy it is by Conservatives and from the Federalist Society, as I believe it carries more weight


Conservative Case Emerges to Disqualify Trump for Role on Jan. 6


Two law professors active in the Federalist Society wrote that the original meaning of the 14th Amendment makes Donald Trump ineligible to hold government office.

Aug. 10, 2023Updated 4:17 p.m. ET

Two prominent conservative law professors have concluded that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to be president under a provision of the Constitution that bars people who have engaged in an insurrection from holding government office. The professors are active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, and proponents of originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning.

The professors — William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas — studied the question for more than a year and detailed their findings in a long article to be published next year in The University of Pennsylvania Law Review.

“When we started out, neither of us was sure what the answer was,” Professor Baude said. “People were talking about this provision of the Constitution. We thought: ‘We’re constitutional scholars, and this is an important constitutional question. We ought to figure out what’s really going on here.’ And the more we dug into it, the more we realized that we had something to add.”

He summarized the article’s conclusion: “Donald Trump cannot be president — cannot run for president, cannot become president, cannot hold office — unless two-thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct on Jan. 6.”

A law review article will not, of course, change the reality that Mr. Trump is the Republican front-runner and that voters remain free to assess whether his conduct was blameworthy. But the scope and depth of the article may encourage and undergird lawsuits from other candidates and ordinary voters arguing that the Constitution makes him ineligible for office.

Conservative Case Emerges to Disqualify Trump for Role on Jan. 6 (Published 2023)

Two law professors active in the Federalist Society wrote that the original meaning of the 14th Amendment makes Donald Trump ineligible to hold government office.

www.nytimes.com

https://archive.ph/d43kA#selection-492.0-651.362

Agree it is good news. My sense is that this conservative group did this to try and help their party from losing BIGLY in 2024.

 

[Jessie C]

It's about time this has been raised and happy it is by Conservatives and from the Federalist Society, as I believe it carries more weight


Conservative Case Emerges to Disqualify Trump for Role on Jan. 6


Two law professors active in the Federalist Society wrote that the original meaning of the 14th Amendment makes Donald Trump ineligible to hold government office.

Aug. 10, 2023Updated 4:17 p.m. ET

Two prominent conservative law professors have concluded that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to be president under a provision of the Constitution that bars people who have engaged in an insurrection from holding government office. The professors are active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, and proponents of originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning.

The professors — William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas — studied the question for more than a year and detailed their findings in a long article to be published next year in The University of Pennsylvania Law Review.

“When we started out, neither of us was sure what the answer was,” Professor Baude said. “People were talking about this provision of the Constitution. We thought: ‘We’re constitutional scholars, and this is an important constitutional question. We ought to figure out what’s really going on here.’ And the more we dug into it, the more we realized that we had something to add.”

He summarized the article’s conclusion: “Donald Trump cannot be president — cannot run for president, cannot become president, cannot hold office — unless two-thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct on Jan. 6.”

A law review article will not, of course, change the reality that Mr. Trump is the Republican front-runner and that voters remain free to assess whether his conduct was blameworthy. But the scope and depth of the article may encourage and undergird lawsuits from other candidates and ordinary voters arguing that the Constitution makes him ineligible for office.

Conservative Case Emerges to Disqualify Trump for Role on Jan. 6 (Published 2023)

Two law professors active in the Federalist Society wrote that the original meaning of the 14th Amendment makes Donald Trump ineligible to hold government office.

www.nytimes.com

https://archive.ph/d43kA#selection-492.0-651.362

Too bad this won't be published until next year, but I agree, this coming from the Federalist Society is huge. I'm sure this will cause a whole lot of foot stomping rage, especially after he's found guilty! He can add 2 more republican lawyers to his hate list!

 

[noonereal]

It's about time this has been raised and happy it is by Conservatives and from the Federalist Society, as I believe it carries more weight


Conservative Case Emerges to Disqualify Trump for Role on Jan. 6


Two law professors active in the Federalist Society wrote that the original meaning of the 14th Amendment makes Donald Trump ineligible to hold government office.

Aug. 10, 2023Updated 4:17 p.m. ET

Two prominent conservative law professors have concluded that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to be president under a provision of the Constitution that bars people who have engaged in an insurrection from holding government office. The professors are active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, and proponents of originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning.

The professors — William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas — studied the question for more than a year and detailed their findings in a long article to be published next year in The University of Pennsylvania Law Review.

“When we started out, neither of us was sure what the answer was,” Professor Baude said. “People were talking about this provision of the Constitution. We thought: ‘We’re constitutional scholars, and this is an important constitutional question. We ought to figure out what’s really going on here.’ And the more we dug into it, the more we realized that we had something to add.”

He summarized the article’s conclusion: “Donald Trump cannot be president — cannot run for president, cannot become president, cannot hold office — unless two-thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct on Jan. 6.”

A law review article will not, of course, change the reality that Mr. Trump is the Republican front-runner and that voters remain free to assess whether his conduct was blameworthy. But the scope and depth of the article may encourage and undergird lawsuits from other candidates and ordinary voters arguing that the Constitution makes him ineligible for office.

Conservative Case Emerges to Disqualify Trump for Role on Jan. 6 (Published 2023)

Two law professors active in the Federalist Society wrote that the original meaning of the 14th Amendment makes Donald Trump ineligible to hold government office.

www.nytimes.com

https://archive.ph/d43kA#selection-492.0-651.362

We have know about this forever.
????

 

[Slartibartfast]

 

[Cardinal]

Agree it is good news. My sense is that this conservative group did this to try and help their party from losing BIGLY in 2024.

And they'll fail for two reasons: Because Trump will never drop out, and because 25%-35% of Republicans aren't going to move on from Trump unless he's abducted by aliens and taken to a distant galaxy (and even then they probably wouldn't move on).

But the gesture is appreciated.

 

[Gaius46]

From the summary:

Section Three (of the 14th Amendment) 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.

 

[DCCougar]

We have know about this forever.

Yeah, but I thought it was a matter of bringing a lawsuit against Trump and having it adjudicated that he was involved in an insurrection and therefore ineligible. But these guys, who claim they researched the matter for what, a year? now assert:

"The provision’s language is automatic, the article said, establishing a qualification for holding office no different in principle from the Constitution’s requirement that only people who are at least 35 years old are eligible to be president.​

​

“Section 3’s disqualification rule may and must be followed — applied, honored, obeyed, enforced, carried out — by anyone whose job it is to figure out whether someone is legally qualified to office,” the authors wrote. That includes election administrators, the article said.​

​

Professor Calabresi said those administrators must act. “Trump is ineligible to be on the ballot, and each of the 50 state secretaries of state has an obligation to print ballots without his name on them,” he said, adding that they may be sued for refusing to do so."​

​

Unfortunately, I don't see that happening based only on a couple of conservative legal researchers. I'm thinking it will have to be determined in a court of law.

​

​

 

[Peacenik]

It's about time this has been raised and happy it is by Conservatives and from the Federalist Society, as I believe it carries more weight


Conservative Case Emerges to Disqualify Trump for Role on Jan. 6


Two law professors active in the Federalist Society wrote that the original meaning of the 14th Amendment makes Donald Trump ineligible to hold government office.

Aug. 10, 2023Updated 4:17 p.m. ET

Two prominent conservative law professors have concluded that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to be president under a provision of the Constitution that bars people who have engaged in an insurrection from holding government office. The professors are active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, and proponents of originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning.

The professors — William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas — studied the question for more than a year and detailed their findings in a long article to be published next year in The University of Pennsylvania Law Review.

“When we started out, neither of us was sure what the answer was,” Professor Baude said. “People were talking about this provision of the Constitution. We thought: ‘We’re constitutional scholars, and this is an important constitutional question. We ought to figure out what’s really going on here.’ And the more we dug into it, the more we realized that we had something to add.”

He summarized the article’s conclusion: “Donald Trump cannot be president — cannot run for president, cannot become president, cannot hold office — unless two-thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct on Jan. 6.”

A law review article will not, of course, change the reality that Mr. Trump is the Republican front-runner and that voters remain free to assess whether his conduct was blameworthy. But the scope and depth of the article may encourage and undergird lawsuits from other candidates and ordinary voters arguing that the Constitution makes him ineligible for office.

Conservative Case Emerges to Disqualify Trump for Role on Jan. 6 (Published 2023)

Two law professors active in the Federalist Society wrote that the original meaning of the 14th Amendment makes Donald Trump ineligible to hold government office.

www.nytimes.com

https://archive.ph/d43kA#selection-492.0-651.362

That's encouraging.

I'll have to read the article to get more insight. Don't have time now.

Seems to me he is guilty of insurrection under US Code 2383:

"Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

He rather obviously did that, incited the insurrection, so he should be ineligible for office. Cut and dried. And don't see much room for any other conclusion.

To me, it doesn't matter whether or not he specifically called for an insurrection. His big lie caused it. Therefore, he incited it. He caused it.

He should have done the responsible thing and accepted his election loss. He didn't. An insurrection resulted. His fault. He is ineligible.

At the very least, he 'gave comfort to' the insurrectionists. He told them he loved them. That enough satisfies that he broke that law.

 

[Slartibartfast]

The federalist society got their SCOTUS so now they are kicking Trump to the curb.

 

[Cardinal]

The federalist society got their SCOTUS so now they are kicking Trump to the curb.

Devil's bargain.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Devil's bargain.

In both directions.

 

[Helix]

Well, shit. The federalist society and I agree about something. Section 3 disqualifies him, and only an act of congress can reverse that.

 

[element94]

It's about time this has been raised and happy it is by Conservatives and from the Federalist Society, as I believe it carries more weight


Conservative Case Emerges to Disqualify Trump for Role on Jan. 6


Two law professors active in the Federalist Society wrote that the original meaning of the 14th Amendment makes Donald Trump ineligible to hold government office.

Aug. 10, 2023Updated 4:17 p.m. ET

Two prominent conservative law professors have concluded that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to be president under a provision of the Constitution that bars people who have engaged in an insurrection from holding government office. The professors are active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, and proponents of originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning.

The professors — William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas — studied the question for more than a year and detailed their findings in a long article to be published next year in The University of Pennsylvania Law Review.

“When we started out, neither of us was sure what the answer was,” Professor Baude said. “People were talking about this provision of the Constitution. We thought: ‘We’re constitutional scholars, and this is an important constitutional question. We ought to figure out what’s really going on here.’ And the more we dug into it, the more we realized that we had something to add.”

He summarized the article’s conclusion: “Donald Trump cannot be president — cannot run for president, cannot become president, cannot hold office — unless two-thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct on Jan. 6.”

A law review article will not, of course, change the reality that Mr. Trump is the Republican front-runner and that voters remain free to assess whether his conduct was blameworthy. But the scope and depth of the article may encourage and undergird lawsuits from other candidates and ordinary voters arguing that the Constitution makes him ineligible for office.

Conservative Case Emerges to Disqualify Trump for Role on Jan. 6 (Published 2023)

Two law professors active in the Federalist Society wrote that the original meaning of the 14th Amendment makes Donald Trump ineligible to hold government office.

www.nytimes.com

https://archive.ph/d43kA#selection-492.0-651.362

Yep, an attempted insurrection is the same as a successful insurrection to commit a coup d'é·tat.

 

[Gaius46]

Yep, an attempted insurrection is the same as a successful insurrection to commit a coup d'é·tat.

It is but I don't think that's really the question. The question to me is whether Trump needs to be criminally convicted of participation in an insurrection before the 14th amendment can be invoked. I was hoping that the summary would address that point - even at 30,000 feet - but it doesn't so we'll have to wait until the full article is published to see the what the authors' take is.

 

[element94]

It is but I don't think that's really the question. The question to me is whether Trump needs to be criminally convicted of participation in an insurrection before the 14th amendment can be invoked. I was hoping that the summary would address that point - even at 30,000 feet - but it doesn't so we'll have to wait until the full article is published to see the what the authors' take is.

Just the conspiracy part of it is enough.

 

[Anthony60]

It's about time this has been raised and happy it is by Conservatives and from the Federalist Society, as I believe it carries more weight

Meaningless drivel by a couple of clowns. Doesn't apply to Trump at all, it was for the Civil War.

 

[Loulit01]

What do you expect from conservatives and The Federalist?

A bunch of commie, pinko, hippie freaks; smoking that reefer, that Mary Jane, waving flowers, painting peace signs, singing Kum-ba-yah, hugging trees, messing with the man.

They need haircuts and jobs! Damned far right yippies. Lock 'em up!

 

[Gaius46]

Just the conspiracy part of it is enough.

I agree. My question is really does it require a conviction. Or is it enough to say - "Enough people think he was the ringleader of an insurrection conspiracy and that's good enough."

 

[Lycanthrope]

BUH BUH BUH IT WAS JUST A LITTLE PEACEFUL CHAOS!

All sarcasm aside, it won't matter.

 

[Rexedgar]

I don’t trust anything originating from The Federalist Society.

 

[Lycanthrope]

The federalist society got their SCOTUS so now they are kicking Trump to the curb.

For all the good it will do them. Trump has the GOP nonination sewn up. Rank and file Republicans may not be MAGA but if polling is accurate they are prepared to support another 4 years of Trumpism in the WH.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

It's about time this has been raised and happy it is by Conservatives and from the Federalist Society, as I believe it carries more weight


Conservative Case Emerges to Disqualify Trump for Role on Jan. 6


Two law professors active in the Federalist Society wrote that the original meaning of the 14th Amendment makes Donald Trump ineligible to hold government office.

Aug. 10, 2023Updated 4:17 p.m. ET

Two prominent conservative law professors have concluded that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to be president under a provision of the Constitution that bars people who have engaged in an insurrection from holding government office. The professors are active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, and proponents of originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning.

The professors — William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas — studied the question for more than a year and detailed their findings in a long article to be published next year in The University of Pennsylvania Law Review.

“When we started out, neither of us was sure what the answer was,” Professor Baude said. “People were talking about this provision of the Constitution. We thought: ‘We’re constitutional scholars, and this is an important constitutional question. We ought to figure out what’s really going on here.’ And the more we dug into it, the more we realized that we had something to add.”

He summarized the article’s conclusion: “Donald Trump cannot be president — cannot run for president, cannot become president, cannot hold office — unless two-thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct on Jan. 6.”

A law review article will not, of course, change the reality that Mr. Trump is the Republican front-runner and that voters remain free to assess whether his conduct was blameworthy. But the scope and depth of the article may encourage and undergird lawsuits from other candidates and ordinary voters arguing that the Constitution makes him ineligible for office.

Conservative Case Emerges to Disqualify Trump for Role on Jan. 6 (Published 2023)

Two law professors active in the Federalist Society wrote that the original meaning of the 14th Amendment makes Donald Trump ineligible to hold government office.

www.nytimes.com

https://archive.ph/d43kA#selection-492.0-651.362

The only really "new" thing about the article is that it is coming from "prominent conservative law professors". Some "prominent liberal law professors" have been saying the same thing for some time.

Personally, if Franklin D, Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Woodrow Wilson were (alive and) sitting on the psychiatric review board of someone who staunchly maintained that "Donald John Trump {BBHN} is exactly the type of person that the Founding Fathers thought would make a good president for the United States of America." the vote would be 5 - 0 in favor of "extending the patient's period of mandatory residence" in "The Home".

 

[Deuce]

The federalist society got their SCOTUS so now they are kicking Trump to the curb.

Trying to eat their cake and have it too. This is a nonsensical position that is safe to take because it will never actually be reality. Trump is not convicted of treason or insurrection. There is negative ten thousand percent chance that SCOTUS chooses to enforce this without such a conviction. So they establish a hm hm yes decorum decorum position but don’t really harm Trump because theres no practical effect.

 

[ouch]

Well, shit. The federalist society and I agree about something. Section 3 disqualifies him, and only an act of congress can reverse that.

and 2/3rds of them at that. That's a steep hill to climb!