A different approach prohibiting Trump from becoming President again made the print this past week. It took form in an article in The Hill which reviewed a recent law review article involving disqualification in holding public office.
My blog today covers both The Hill article and law review article. The Hill presentation so well done that most of my blog is a plagarization of it.
The Hill published the article yesterday. Titled: The Constitution Bars Trump From Holding Public Office Ever Again. Its author in an Opinion piece by Donald K. Sherman relied strongly on a law review article published in the University of Pennsylvania Law review, vol. 172, 8/14/23, titled: The Sweep and Force of Section Three.. It was authored by two law professors: William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas. Both are members of the conservative Federalist Society, which gives credence to the law review article.
A law review is a scholarly law journal that focuses on legal issues. A type of legal periodical. Each article deeply researched. A law review also provides a scholarly analysis of emerging concepts involving various topics. Lengthy, comprehensive subjects are generally written by law professors, judges and legal practitioners. Short articles, commonly referred to as “notes” or “comments,” by top law students.
In The Sweep and Force of Section Three, the two law Professors claim Trump is already Constitutionally forbidden from serving in public office because of Section Three of the 14th Amendment. The Section is known as the Disqualification Clause. The Disqualification Clause bars from office any government officer who takes an oath to defend the Constitution and then engages in or aids an insurrection against the United States. A disability only a two thirds majority of both houses of Congress can act to remove.
As Professors Baude and Paulsen note, “Section Three requires no prior criminal law conviction, for treason or any other defined crime as a prerequisite for its disqualification to apply.”
Which means Trump is already disqualified without a guilty verdict forthcoming in any of the pending cases against him.
The provision is “self-executing without the need for additional action by Congress.” The Professors note that Section Three “can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications.”
The Professors further indicate that “the free speech principles of the 1st Amendment are superseded by Section Three.”
I’d like to hear what some other respected Constitutional scholars think about the application of the Disqualification Clause, including former Federal Judge and respected scholar J. Michael Luttig.
I find the Disqualification concept interesting. Whether applicable is for legal theorists with capacities far beyond mine.
Enjoy your day!
Lou, the conservative Federalist Society, is a group of people (mostly men) who sit around and mostly do nothing, apart from pontificate. They’re constantly stroking, but never really do anything.
Trump will be cast aside ONLY when he is no longer useful to politicians.
The good thing is, he in NOW becoming more and more useful to the more liberal left and those with honesty and integrity.
Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Other Rights
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
“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.”
Could that be more clear in describing what Trump did that disqualifies him from holding any public office after January 6th? It reads that what he did by encouraging and supporting the insurrectionists totally disqualifies him from being elected POTUS or holder of any other public office again.
Yes, but so what? it means nothing if not enforced and so far, not even the Republican party, the “official” Republican party, has made any attempt to abide by that. Nor has any of the major news outlets, they ALL include him as an “official” candidate.
Andy is right, He will “be cast aside ONLY when he is no longer useful to politicians” and wealthy donors.
Let’s see if the almighty Federalist Society files suit to test the constitution, or if they just sit back and just smugly, as always.