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

[Kennah]

Source: NY Times

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.
...
There is, the article said, “abundant evidence” that Mr. Trump engaged in an insurrection, including by setting out to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election, trying to alter vote counts by fraud and intimidation, encouraging bogus slates of competing electors, pressuring the vice president to violate the Constitution, calling for the march on the Capitol and remaining silent for hours during the attack itself.

“It is unquestionably fair to say that Trump ‘engaged in’ the Jan. 6 insurrection through both his actions and his inaction,” the article said.

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/trump-jan-6-insurrection-conservatives.html

[rurallib]

1. Problem republicans have is that if Trump is shut out

his cult won't vote for a replacement.

You are hosed, Republicans

[newdayneeded]

9. I agree to a point,

but they still will hold their nose and vote for the R candidate.

[jmowreader]

25. Many of them won't even vote

This would take some research to prove/disprove but I suspect quite a few Trump voters only voted in the presidential race - they left the rest of the ballot blank.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

10. Hosed, Republicons are. . . . . nt

[calimary]

62. GOOD.

No one, and no group, deserves it more.

[oldsoftie]

29. Their loss. I know several who will skip that line if trump IS on it.

Anecdotal evidence, but I KNOW these people voted for him in '16 & likely '20. I know of 2 who skipped that line in '20.
Hopefully its a national trend. I'm in GA so every vote he LOSES is important.

[Wednesdays]

2. Conservative law professors, eh?

They apparently had no problem with tRump before this point. Now, they're seeing the tRump and GOP train headed for the cliff...THAT'S their motivation.

[melm00se]

18. So you'd reject their

help in making the case that Trump is ineligible?

[Volaris]

19. I mean...I'll happily agree with them and sign their petition lol,

but unless a court agrees with us, it won't mean fuckall.

[melm00se]

49. I am willing to bet that the draft

version of this paper hit certain politicians' desks long before this came to the public's attention.

And their legal staffs began peer review and folded their logic nicely into the filings that are sitting and waiting for the right moment.

[Volaris]

65. I'll grant that you're right, but until some sec of state somewhere,

doesnt put his name on the ballot, and he files suit (he will), there's still a judge needs involved.

[melm00se]

70. But the argument

has to start with someone's idea.

In the academic world borrowing someone's thesis is plagiarism but in the business world it is collaboration or implementing a best practice

[Volaris]

73. I agree with all of that, and with the thesis statement.

Like I said, I'll HAPPILY sign the petition!

[SouthernDem4ever]

57. Or can you get any magats to listen?

And what about the rest of those assholes sitting in the Congress and Senate that aided and abetted him in his efforts?

[stopdiggin]

78. +1. entirely correct. this is 'interesting'

But until someone is actually removing his name from the ballot ...
It will remain just that. Interesting.

Glad to have this 'opinion' (from the Federalist cabal). But, we'll see where (if anywhere) this goes ...

And these 'luminaries' are hardly alone in having looked at this issue ..

[orangecrush]

36. +1

[SoFlaBro]

81. I reject the fucking attempt to disqualify Orange Shitstain. He's a fucking piece of shit target.

for fuck

[onetexan]

39. There's no mention how they voted the previous 2 elections

How do u know they're trumpers? There are plenty of conservatives who did not vote for the Con.

[JT45242]

68. Federalist society says it all...

They want authoritarian return to preCivil war era with no rights for blacks, women, poor, etc.

They voted for him both times.

But, like the rethug secretary of states who testified to the Jan 6 committee, I voted for him...I wanted him to win...but stealing the election was a step too far. Kids in cages, ok. Mocking disabled, black, etc. Ok. Not knowing that Puerto Rico is part of the US, ok. Lying tens of thousands of times. Ok.

What has changed with the federalist society is that they know TFG is a loser. They will lose seats on the court that they spent billions to buy.

These two asshats can as Cartman would say "you go to hell. You go to hell and you die.'

[smb]

48. They See Their Doom Approaching

If the worshipers of the Orange Clown, like those of the Golden Calf, are doomed to wander the wilderness for forty years, as was said three thousand years ago so still it must be said: "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether".

[Journeyman]

58. Props for channeling Mr Lincoln to put these all these clowns to task . . .

[Fiendish Thingy]

3. Without a conviction, he won't be disqualified. Nt

[Novara]

8. A conviction is not needed

It's right in the Constitution.

[Fiendish Thingy]

11. Name a single incident since the civil war where someone was disqualified without a conviction

You can’t, because there have been none.

[Gore1FL]

22. Why the "since the civil war" disqualifier?

If Jefferson Davis and Confederate generals could be barred without a trial or conviction why not Trump and associates?

[Fiendish Thingy]

23. Think about it for a second...

What sets members of the Confederacy apart from Trump?

There were members of congress who were actively supporting the Nazi’s, and used their postal privileges to mail propaganda to constituents. They met with Nazi emissaries and discussed how to overthrow the US government, and how they would help run things once the Nazi’s occupied America. They supported militias who stole arms from military bases and planned sabotage and insurrection.

They were acquitted of seditious conspiracy charges, and served out their terms. Some were re-elected, others weren’t. None were disqualified, nor was there any attempt to disqualify them.

You can debate your constitutional theories all you want, but the reality is, without some sort of conviction, Trump will not be disqualified, and even if he is, would certainly appeal.

[Bayard]

45. My understanding

Is that this requirement was added to keep members of he Confederacy out of Congress, convicted of anything, or not. It looks just as pertinent today.

I'm not sure what the Nazis have to do with it.

[Fiendish Thingy]

53. Go listen to Rachel Maddow's podcast "Ultra"

It talks about Nazi sympathizers in congress who actively plotted, aided and abetted Germans, and were tried and acquitted of seditious conspiracy.

[Bayard]

63. I was asking,

What members of the Confederacy have to do with Nazis?

[Fiendish Thingy]

74. Confederates and Nazi sympathizers were both seditious

Yet the Nazi sympathizers weren’t disqualified.

[Gore1FL]

46. Wow, I ask a question, and it gets called a debate!

What would we call it if I argued?

[MorbidButterflyTat]

26. Name a single incident since the civil war where

a racist rapist, mobster "president" incited insurrection, conspired with enemies of the US, tried to steal an election and STILL tries to, intimidates witnesses, prosecutors and judges, etc., too many crimes to list...

You can’t, because there have been none.

[oldsoftie]

30. We've never had a Trump before. There's always a first. nt

[Captain Zero]

64. Couldn't states ban him from the ballot in their state?

Like if he was convicted of messing with their electoral report to congress in 2020 then they should keep him off their ballots.

[oldsoftie]

67. If so, the only ones who'd do it would be states he'd never win anyway

Alabama isnt going to block him from the ballot!

[Hugh_Lebowski]

77. I presumed the poster meant the states where there was a fake elector scheme

Which are hugely important states

[stopdiggin]

79. true. but that action would almost immediately be challenged

in court. And then we're back to the original question of - can this be done without a conviction (or court ruling)?

The thesis that this issue is already decided and a fait accompli ...
Is the stretch where so many observers are foundering ..

[NYC Liberal]

35. There's a list here:

https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/

Regardless, I agree it won’t happen in Trump’s case without a conviction. Even without one it would likely still require a court ruling. Congress can refuse to seat people (since they are constitutionally each House is “the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualification's of its own Members”) but there’s nobody who could do that with the president. Except maybe the Electoral College, but really that would just be the electors choosing to vote for someone else not “disqualifying” him.

[Fiendish Thingy]

37. Thanks for the link

It proves my point.

[ancianita]

13. If there's no legal proof that he violated Sec 3 of the 14th, there's no valid claim that

he's disqualified.

Doesn't matter if he were charged and convicted under the Insurrection Act, or Sec 3 of the 14th, anyway, because no one of that group is going to sue to have either enforced.

[onetexan]

40. It's certainly worth a try. Let's see how far they get.

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

54. Without a conviction that disqualifies him

Not all of his indicted charges qualify to prevent him from running for office. Until he has a conviction for something that does qualify, he can still run--and do it from jail, if that's how it shakes out.

[Fiendish Thingy]

61. That's the part that isn't crystal clear

Last year, a judge ruled that Couy Griffin was disqualified under the 14th amendment from his position as county commissioner after he was convicted of an misdemeanour for entering a restricted area (the Capitol) on January 6.

[melm00se]

72. The authors

argue that a conviction is not necessary for several reasons.

1. They argue the the Constitutional requirement of depriving of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law” is not applicable because the right to hold public office is not a form of “life, liberty, or property”. It is, rather, a public privilege, a public trust, to be vested with the power of the people. Additionally, they argue that due process protects private vested rights from public deprivation. It does not protect public rights.

2. Amendment 14, sec 3 is "self-executing". As soon as the conditions are met, the sanctions automatically kick in.

3. They support the previous 2 arguments by pointing to the 13th Amendment which deprived southern slave owners of their property without due process nor any additional conditions: no dates, no locations (other than the USA).

They also argue that the Constitution's "enduring text" makes A14 sec 3 is definitely applicable today as this part of the Amendment cannot be overridden by legislation nor has it been repealed by an amendment. They discuss how the "enduring text" supplies the governing rules not the ostensible “purpose” or specific historical situation for which the text was written. (While they do not say it, this is one of the theories underlying the grammatical gymnastics in the Heller decision.

[Fiendish Thingy]

75. Except, in the real world...

Disqualification is not “self executing”.

Somebody posted a link to a list of the eight individuals disqualified under the 14th amendment since the civil war.

There have certainly been more than eight people in public office, or running for office, who have participated in insurrection or sedition since the civil war.

If somehow disqualification is enabled without a relevant conviction, be prepared for that to be weaponized by the GOP and used by MAGA judges to disqualify Dems across the country.

[Paladin]

4. Restating the painfully obvious.

But having that restatement coming from a couple of old Federalist Society profs, and appearing in an Ivy League law review, might have some favorable impact. We'll see...

[forgotmylogin]

5. I had a flash the other day...

The reason right-wing candidates are largely refusing to criticize Mr. Trump:

Many of them know barring calamity, he'll win the nomination, so they are basically auditioning to be his running mate. They're not running against him, they're brown-nosing to be the best possible option as his Dick Cheney-esque minion.

Which is a good place to be since if god-forbid, TFG is re-elected, there are many reasons he might not fill out a four-year term either by legal catastrophe, health reasons, or he just gets tired of doing the work and permits the VP to go full Dick Cheney and run things while he jet-sets around the country on taxpayer money doing his vanity road shows shaking the tin cup and running for a newly-legal third term. They're eyeing his coat-tails as a greased-slide into the presidency.

[Eyeball_Kid]

34. Tired of doing the work?

Trump was the laziest prez on history. Golf, rallies, more golf. What a bunch of crap.

[forgotmylogin]

59. Exactly.

He never even really learned what he was doing the first time - except having candy-jar access to secrets he could exploit and signing his name really big on anything with a sharpie.

[flying_wahini]

38. I shudder to think of Pres Kari Lake. OMG.

[mpcamb]

52. Cheney was the worst, most evil, costliest VP in history as he dragged us into Iraq

and Afghanistan. He lied and burned the documents that proved it when he was in his last few days in office. A RAT thru and thru.

[Cheezoholic]

6. He'll probably be dead within a year the way he's looking n/t

[ShazzieB]

27. I've heard that one before, too many times to count.

I'm not saying it's impossible, just that I wouldn't hold my breath. He's looked extremely unhealthy for years, and yet he's still here, scuttling around like the cockroach he is and apparently just as resilient!

[raising2moredems]

60. All the medical care he's received...

on the taxpayers dime. If he was on Medicaid, his party would be squealing like Ned Beatty that someone who smoked 3 packs a day didn't deserve medical care.

[oldsoftie]

31. And for the first time with anyone, I hope so. And I dont like feeling that way

I scolded people for hoping Scalia's heart would explode back in the day. I just never thought it was a god thing to wish for. But Trump is an actual threat to the existence of this country. Thats 100x worse than Scalia.
But it just seems like he needs to drop on the 8th hole.

[flying_wahini]

41. How about just dropping him off at the 8th hole and make him walk back? In this heat.

That would probably do it.

[oldsoftie]

50. Thanks; I needed that!! The visual itself is hilarious.

[AKwannabe]

7. If this is true

Then people in the know DNC? Dem Senators? Federal Elections personnel? would/should/could be engaging in the appropriate process(es) to get him disqualified NOW! Problem solved with having tRump as a candidate at all.

Am I wrong?

[ificandream]

16. No, you're not. I would think that'd be in the DNC arsenal if it was viable, though.

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

55. They have to wait for a conviction for a qualifying crime

Before they can do anything.

So they have to wait for that like the rest of us.

[modrepub]

12. As The Old Saying Goes

Even a broken (analog) clock is right twice a day. eom

[The Magistrate]

14. Originalism Breaks Off Here

Last edited Thu Aug 10, 2023, 07:44 PM - Edit history (1)

Unfortunately, perhaps, but it does.

When this provision was included, it was clear at whom it was aimed: persons who had participated in the Confederacy during the late war. This would certainly include any member of the Confederate armed forces or of its governments, any number of whom, it should be recalled, had been active in the US military or national politics before the attempt at seccession. That Congress could grant remission from this stricture, and did so in many instances, suggests that if a standard is to to be met for inflicting this penalty on a person who has engaged in insurrection, it is for the Congress to set. The law regarding insurrection in force today is the standard Congress has set. Insurrection is a defined crime, of which any accused is deemed innocent till proved guilty under law. Much as I would like to see it done, I do not think mere indictment sufficient to levy a penalty, which is what pronouncing someone to have engaged in insurrection on say-so, even say-so by a horde of witnesses and mass of documentation in picture and print, amounts to.

[William769]

15. K&R.

[czarjak]

17. Get a load of this...

In 2016, The Donald accepted the results of an election that he said was rigged.

[Duppers]

47. Indeed - a good point.

[Permanut]

20. Sounds like those professors are woke..

So us real Murkins can ignore them.

[Firestorm49]

21. Nice. Very nice. Now let's see if it comes to fruition?

[twodogsbarking]

24. Well here is one thought.

[Moostache]

28. If you created a large red button that said "Push ME"...

...and the result was that Donald Trump would fall off the face of the Earth, you would have to disable me to prevent that button from getting slammed on like a Michael Jordan dunk...

[oldsoftie]

32. The line would be longer than the Lotto. nt

[flying_wahini]

42. I'd buy a couple of tickets.

[Eyeball_Kid]

33. The Constitution does NOT require that

a Court of law determine whether or not one has participated in an insurrection, but a preponderance of evidence would help.

[Botany]

43. 14th amendment article 3

e. o. s. End of story

[Raven123]

44. Studied the question for over a year? This should be some article.

[FakeNoose]

51. Here's the thing: Repukes can write his name in on the ballot, even if he isn't a candidate

What happens if enough people write in Chump's name and then it's unintentionally a 3-way race? A race that nobody wins?

We don't want that to happen, and (I'd assume) the Repukes don't either. So this issue needs to be settled BEFORE the primaries start and hopefully BEFORE he's convicted in one of his trials.

There needs to be a consensus, and I don't understand why it can't be settled by an Executive Order. That can be filed immediately before the shit hits the fan.

[Skittles]

56. disqualify someone who TRIED TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT

IMAGINE THAT!

[Snackshack]

66. Something needs to happen...

…and it needs to happen soon. It’s just a matter of time until someone is killed/assassinated by one of the many unbalanced individual’s DT/GOP specifically target with their hate propaganda.

DT needs to be shut down or informed that any harm that comes to anyone that he either lies blatantly about or calls for violence in typical gop way with some comment about 2nd amendment solutions… that he will be held personally responsible and will be charged with murder so he better make sure that does not happen.

The hate and vitriol DT and many more in GOP are spewing is levels above what we were hearing back in 07/08 when Gabby Giffords was attacked and almost murdered.

[Ohioboy]

69. Most of the work was done by the Jan 6 committee

I like how the republicans who didn't want a Jan 6 committee are able to use the work of the committee to hopefully help rid themselves of the Orange Menace.

Glad to have a few sane republicans and Conservatives finally see the light and realize TFG is unfit for office ever again.

[Martin68]

71. I think there must be a very good reason Jack smith didn't charge Trump with insurrection.

The evidence required to prove the charge probably isn't available because the bar is very high. I'd love to see Trump charged with insurrection and barred or life from running for political office, but if it would be too difficult to convince a jury that Trump was guilty of insurrection, it would bolster Trump, not damage him.

[BlueWavePsych]

76. Kick

[NewJeffCT]

80. They want Trump out of the way

and want him out of the way ASAP so they can get behind Death Santis or whoever.

If Trump is convicted & is appealing his convictions next summer & fall, there is no way independents and the few remaining sane Republicans would vote for Trump, and it would kill the party trying to hold a narrow margin in the House & also retake the Senate.