11/1/23

Scholars reinforce arguments in Disqualification Clause

With pristine clarity, Professor Laurence H. Tribe and Dennis Aftergut explain in this @USATODAY essay the compelling case for disqualification of the former president from future "office . . . under the United States" under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment: Simply, he rebelled "against the Constitution of the United States" when, in violation of the Constitution's Executive Vesting Clause, he tried to overturn the 2020 presidential election and remain in power, notwithstanding that he had lost that election and the American People had voted instead to confer the Executive power upon his successor, now-President Joseph Biden. This is the issue -- and the only issue -- before the courts in Colorado and Minnesota this week: Did the former president "rebel" against "the Constitution of the United States" when he tried to overturn the 2020 presidential election. [Judge J. Michael Luttig]
And.
The authors of Section 3 recognized that another run at office by anyone who had tried to overturn an election in violation of the oath could end the republic. That leaves a paramount question for the courts to answer concerning Trump. What does it mean to engage in “insurrection or rebellion against” the Constitution? It’s important to notice what can be easily missed: The text of Section 3 says exactly that – the disqualifying misconduct is rebellion against the Constitution. That kind of subversion of a fundamental tenet of the Constitution is precisely what the 14th Amendment has to mean by “insurrection or rebellion against” it, the very definition of disqualifying conduct under Section 3. [Ban Trump from 2024 ballot? Why courts should rule he can't serve as president again.]
Learn more at the Colorado Newsline.

Meanwhile, Trump lawyer John Eastman is defending his advice to Mike Pence.
Posted by at
piled in ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)