The Constitution bars Trump from holding public office ever again | The Hill
Category: News & Politics
Via: vic-eldred • last year • 100 commentsBy: Donald K. Sherman (The Hill)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
While some on the right portray accountability for the Jan. 6 Capitol riot as just another partisan dispute, two prominent conservative legal scholars have made the case that the Constitution disqualifies former President Trump from public office.
Last week, law professors William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas — both members of the conservative Federalist Society — argued in a law review article that Trump is already constitutionally forbidden from serving in public office because of Section Three of the 14th Amendment.
This section, also known as 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. Only a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress can act to remove such disability.
It should not come as a surprise that Trump meets this standard. All three branches of the government have identified the attack on the Capitol as an insurrection, with multiple federal judges, bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate, as well as the bipartisan Jan. 6 House select committee, citing Trump as its central cause.
As 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." Trump's indictment by special counsel Jack Smith for election-related crimes only further bolsters the case for his constitutional disqualification.
Those federal criminal charges include conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights by attempting to "oppress, threaten or intimidate" people in their free exercise and enjoyment of their right to vote.
Although Trump's role in fomenting the attack on the Capitol has been well documented, Baude and Paulsen argue that the "full legal consequences" of Section Three "have not been appreciated or enforced." As they explain, the Disqualification Clause is "an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation."
The provision is also "self-executing … without the need for additional action by Congress." As the professors note, Section Three "can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications."
Last September, three New Mexico residents represented by my organization, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, won the first case in more than 150 years removing an elected official from office based on participation in an insurrection. The court ruled that then-New Mexico County Commissioner Couy Griffin had violated Section Three of the 14th Amendment by recruiting men for battle to join Trump's "wild" effort to overturn the election Jan. 6, normalized violence and breached police barriers as part of the weaponized mob that allowed others to overwhelm law enforcement and storm the Capitol. Griffin's removal marked the first case at the federal or state level concluding that what occurred Jan. 6 was an insurrection.
In Griffin's case, the court found that disqualifying officials under Section Three of the 14th Amendment does not conflict with the First Amendment right to protest. It also rebuffed attempts by Griffin to conflate Jan. 6 with Black Lives Matter protests.
In their article, Baude and Paulsen explain that "to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them," including "the free speech principles of the First Amendment."
Most importantly, the authors conclude that Section Three covers a "broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order" and "a broad range of former offices, including the presidency." They state explicitly that Section Three "disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election."
Every president, regardless of party, takes an oath to preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States. Enforcing the Disqualification Clause against an official who violated that oath is an act of patriotism, not partisanship. As Baude and Paulsen correctly state, "Officials must enforce the Constitution because it is law … Section Three has legal force already."
The Disqualification Clause has already been used successfully to promote accountability for the insurrection, and, in the coming months, it will be used again to prevent Trump and others from serving in public office.
Donald K. Sherman is executive vice president and chief counsel at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
Tags
Who is online
400 visitors
That seems to make sense to me. If Trump is convicted, I expect a lawsuit right away so that his candidacy is suspended. If there is no court ruling before the 2024 election, I have to regard the proponents of this claim to be acting in bad faith.
So what would you recommend the GOP do right now? The GOP has a poison pill that will almost certainly ruin its chance for seating an R PotUS in 2024. What should they do?
Concentrate on making sure the voting public knows that Brandon is every bit the criminal Trump is; and that the Federal government is tool of the Democrat Party.
Bring Brandon down to Trump's level. Even if the POS Garland will never indict him.
Reelecting Democrats isn't acceptable at any level.
Other than that; let the primaries sort themselves out. Don't play favorites like the Democrats do and tilt the election in any Establishment candidate's favor. Looking at you Pence, Christie, and Haley. Then actually support the candidate that wins the primary. The Establishment Republicans didn't in 2020. Campaign for Democrats and lose your place in the party. Keep party campaign money sitting on the sidelines- don't expect a dime more.
I know leftists desperately want the GOP to be like the DNC and play favorites. They will lose for sure if they do.
In the meantime, the GOP is going to nominate Trump. Do you not see the problem I outlined?
Definition of blind partisanship.
So, step one is lie to the voters. Republicans have already been doing that.
Step 2, same as step one.
First Biden would have to start calling his opponents by juvenile nicknames. Don't see any indication of him doing that.
First Biden needs to commit a crime somewhere other than in a republican's wet dream.
Partisan bullshit.
So you feel that the RNC paying Trump's legal bills is NOT playing favorites?
And the Democrats are going to nominate Biden.
Says someone who shows their "blind partisanship" in every post
Yes, they apparently are. You are deflecting.
Back up that demonstrably false claim.
Do you not see the problem with the GOP nominating Trump and potentially winding up with a nominee who cannot be elected?
Hello?
You mean like having a foreign agent come up with a phony document and accuse someone of collusion when none existed. The Dems already used those.
You mean crimes like accepting millions of dollars from a hostile government and conspiracy. Those kind of crimes? Which he is guilty.
Go back and look and you previous comments. I have neither the time nor the inclination to do it for you.
You do not seem to care about the Democrats nominating someone so incompetent and senile that couldn't get a job as a Walmart greeter.
Congratulations! You have step 1 down pat.
Wow! You have step 2 down as well. Has someone been practicing the 1st 2 steps??????
You continue to make claims you cannot back up.
First of all, you blow your credibility by claiming Biden could not competently work even as a Walmart greeter. You should know by now that such hyperbole causes readers to disregard what you write. It definitely does for me.
Second, you continually refuse to register what I write. You keep pushing your D stereotype on me and basically inventing positions for me that I have repeatedly shown to be false.
I suggest you cease with this incessant misrepresentation.
Now, attempt to get this registered, I am against Biden for PotUS. But if we have a matchup between Biden and Trump and it looks as though Trump has a shot at winning, I will absolutely vote AGAINST Trump by voting for Biden. If those are not the circumstances, then my vote will vary accordingly. If you need further details, here is a link to recent post that shows my strategy.
I call 'em like I see them.
Just as I have said I will not vote for Biden under any circumstances
BTW. In the last two election cycles I didn't vote for Trump in the primaries. I did vote for him in the general because the democrat nominees were so bad.
You spout bullshit and refuse to back it up (since you cannot). I suggest you cease with the bullshit and make claims that you can support with an argument.
We all know you are a blind partisan. No need to keep telling us.
If you want to provide something new, tell us which D you would vote for.
[Deleted]
Can't answer that. I am not psychic and I don't know who's running.
When was the conviction? 2 billion from the saudi's? Trump pays more in taxes in China than he does here and his daughter got 18 patents in China???? Hello? Trump is a Xi puppet.
I'll assume you misspelled Biden, (it's ok, long name), and ask you to list all the indictments.
[Deleted]
Are you okay, Ronin2? Seriously, your comment is worrisome.
[deleted]
One could ask the same thing about the things the left accuses Trump of. And just so you know, an indictment is not a conviction.
Accuses? Lol, Trump announces them himself.
Compare the Biden-Hunter connection with Russiagate. Both have roughly the same amount of quality evidence.
Trump accusations are based on substantial evidence; much of which we have all observed ourselves. There is no comparison.
You mean like Hunter's laptop and his emails? Like his cocaine found in the White House? You mean like the note that gave the distribution of a Chinese payoff including some for the "Big Guy"? Like daddy Joe holding Ukrainian aid until they stopped investigating Hunter?
When the investigators are working for and beholding to the investigate, and the media is on their side to, not much evidence will come out
When do you think Biden will be indicted for having classified material?
We are awaiting the inevitable day when you say the four convictions dont count because we have a "two tiered" justice system.
Will you ever run out of excuses for Trump? Apparently not.
Yes, arkpdx, that is what I am referring to.
Never. Trump was not indicted for merely having classified material.
Get a clue, this is basic stuff and it gets old constantly explaining the obvious.
Why would I say that? Unlike liberals, I actually believe in our system of justice and I do wait for a conviction.
Apparently we do as far as Democrats are concerned. Hillary mishandled classified documents and was never prosecuted. Biden mishandled classified documents and he isn't even being investigated. Hillary actually did collude with the Russians and other foreign agents and again was not even investigated.
In four different locations over a 40 year CAREER in the government.
Then what was he indicted for.
Funny how anyone can drop cocaine in the Whitehouse and it automatically becomes Hunter Biden’s. Obviously that was the plan from the beginning.
Read the indictments. This forum alone has provided members with the actual indictments as well as considerable explanation of same.
There is no excuse for someone like you (and, apparently, JustJim) to ask what Trump was indicted for.
Now maybe you can comment on what my comment was concerning. That was tigs comment about the documents indictment
I asked:
Which was very narrow in its scope.
You answered:
Which expanded it greatly.
Now why don't you think Biden should be indicted for mishandling classified material?
Indictments are not convictions and have nothing necessarily to do with guilt. Now after there are convictions we can talk. Until the your opinion is just that, yours.
Neither Trump nor Biden nor Pence should be indicted for merely possessing classified material. That is a violation of the PRA but that act is not criminal.
The proper action, when docs are discovered, is to cooperate with the authorities to secure them. Both Biden and Pence did that. Trump, in contrast, engaged in delay tactics, lied about the documents he had, tried to hide documents from authorities, suborned others to do likewise and even, at least on one occasion, knowingly and willingly revealed contents of a document to a reporter.
Also see: 1.1.32 to get educated on what Trump was charged in his indictments.
Do you have any proof of that?
When weren't they?
Lies and made up nonsense, is that all you have?
What about Hunter's laptop??????
Haven't you read any of the indictments???????????????
BINGO
BANGO
BONGO!
One employee was also told to destroy evidence -- so since it wasn't actually destroyed he's not guilty I imagine.
Nope, Trump was indicated for not returning classified documents when he was specifically asked for them, falsely claimed he didn't have them or they were his and finally refused to return them, hid them and cconspired with others to move them while obstructing justice and lying to the investigators all along the way, unlike Joe Biden and Pence who cooperated, returned everything and told the truth...
Wrongo! It is not just my opinion! It is also the opinions of all the the prosecutors and all the four different grand juries in the four separate jurisdictions who saw all the evidence and who then voted to indicate Trump's opinions, too!
I just realized what a stupid statement that was.
Try reading the indictment(s).
Stop expecting everyone to do your homework for you.
Then I am sure you must think Hillary should be indicted, tried and convicted also.
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
I am truly tired of telling you that I believe Hillary engaged in irresponsible wrongdoing and probably could have been charged.
Since I do not beat around the bush and tell you straight out, you are to blame for not registering the answer.
Since she has not been charged there is no comparing Hillary to Trump.
Further, Trump's collective wrongful acts so far overshadow those of Hillary (or any other politician for that matter) that any comparison is a category error.
That’s the problem with your logic and simply highlights the two tiered nature of our justice system. This isn’t a defense of Trumps actions but rather simply pointing Hillary’s equally offensive/illegal behavior.
Trump gets prosecuted …. Hillary doesn’t.
And that should piss you off.
My logic is sound. One cannot compare indictments to no indictments.
And when I compared wrongdoing (which one can indeed do) I noted that the collective wrongdoing of Trump greatly overshadows that of Hillary.
Do you not recognize that?
Your 'analysis' is flawed.
[deleted]
No, my logic is unbiased and spot on. Yours, not so much
I’m not the one having recognition problems. You refuse to recognize the reality of illegal behavior by Hillary and the free pass she got after doing so. I on the other hand have already pointed out I wasn’t excusing Trumps actions. But you’ve accepted Hillary’s actions as somehow being “not as bad.” You’re attempting to put whip cream on shit with Hillarys behavior. Ridiculous!
Nope, that would be yours. Collective wrong doings? Your rationalizations on such are flawed. And greatly.
Then you fail to read. The best we can state is wrongdoing .... which I have stated. Illegal behavior is determined by a court of law. You know this, right, so what is your problem?
Your post has no argument just taunts.
I’ve failed at nothing and as usual, stand by all my posts.
No more need be said
When was she president again? I forget...
Thank God she never was but then again the laws she broke do not say that only presidents are subject to them.
Prove it.
Yes you did. You conveniently forgot from day one she considered Trump an illegitimate President. So in her mind she was President. Regardless, that’s irrelevant.
Her actions were just as bad as Trumps. If not worse. No amount of TDS can change that. She’s no special class. Except in her own mind. She’s guilty and I find it amazing how many sheeple she has defending her.
Simply amazing.
One legal sticking point is the word 'insurrection' and how it applies to Trump:
I think there is an excellent chance to constitutionally tag Trump with "insurrection or rebellion " against the CotUS but adjudication is not a science.
if jack smith makes trump read that sometime during the trial, trump will implicate himself within 3 questions...
[Deleted]
I will say it again. Being accused of something is not the same as being guilty of something. Just because you want it to be so does not make it so. [Deleted]
We understand everything just fine, [Deleted]
He hasn’t been convicted of either insurrection or rebellion. Without that, not sure how this argument stands.
If convicted in the Jan 6th indictment I think it would be easy to conclude Trump engaged in rebellion against the CotUS.
I suspect it is legally viable to conclude Trump engaged in rebellion against the CotUS without even requiring the Jan 6th trial.
And if the conviction gets overturned by a higher court? Considering the trial is taking place in the Democrat bastion of stupidity DC- with a far leftist lunatic judge the chances for a fair trial are nil.
I suspect that leftists will agree- since they regularly shit on the Constitution and the law. I doubt the vast majority of Americans will follow suit. Doing so will bring an immediate end to the US.
You seem to be rooting for the Disqualification Clause to be inapplicable.
Do you want Trump as the GOP nominee??
Here's a question I have been wondering about. Suppose the worst happens, and Trump is re-elected. His 1st act will be pardoning himself for 1/6 activities and convictions.
Accepting a pardon is legally equivalent to admitting guilt, which would make him ineligible to be POTUS, which means he cannot pardon himself.
It would be a constitutional fiasco.
Another point, if this were to occur the stock market would take a hit and that could trigger economic repercussions.
But, happily, short of a third party siphoning votes from the D, there is no viable chance for Trump to be elected.
Not exactly, but it would open one hell of a can of worms. Perhaps even a constitutional crisis.
How so? By holding a protest rally? As your queen and goddess once said, " they were America's and have a right to protest".
I would not be so sure of that. As of an August first poll they are neck and neck
He cannot pardon himself if he is found guilty in Georgia of the crimes he is alleged to have committed there - it is a State rather than Federal matter.
The SecState for each state are the authorities who determine who can be on ballots. Any (or all) of them can disqualify Trump based on his unconstitutional attempts to steal the US election and raising his supporter's ire with lies (one can go on and on with myriad examples and supporting evidence). The SecStates have the authority; it comes with the office.
Their decisions can be challenged. The challenge would then be adjudicated. If the plaintiff wins, Trump goes on the ballot. If not, he does not.
That is how.
Trump is not legally charged with causing the riot, although he did. He is charged with a plot to steal the election, which would also qualify as rebellion.
It is tiresome to have to tell you people this a hundred times.
Just because you suspect something is so does not make it so. I suspect Hillary to be a space alien but that does not necessarily make her one
Just because you suspect something is so does not make it so. I suspect Hillary to be a space alien but that does not necessarily make her one
[removed]
I used the word 'suspect' rather than 'know'.
Telling us what 'suspect' means is pointless.
How? He isn't charged with insurrection or rebellion. Those words have specific meanings.
The only two informative words in that comment.
One need not be found legally guilty of these charges for the SecState for each state to act.
Their decisions can be challenged in a court of law.
see @3.1.9
That's it. Completely ignore where the elites stand in today's politics. Just ignore that Donald Trump is being prosecuted by the elite for crimes against the elite. Stick your academic elite Republicans where the sun don't shine and chant Kamala-lala-la. Vote for Biden; Biden defends and protects the elite.
In case no one has noticed, Trump's MAGA supporters don't have a lot of faith in our elite institutions. An expert is someone that should not be trusted. So, why should we believe that these elitist arguments made by academic experts are going to change one damned thing?
For Republicans still wedded to faux bourgeois nobility of the elite, it would be wise to focus attention on the candidate for Vice President. Mike Pence defending the pomp and pageantry of elite privilege has about as much chance as Jeb Bush. The Republican elite will use any and all dirty tricks to avoid creating a party platform because that would give voice to the stupid, ignorant MAGA crowd. The best chance for the Republican deadwood is to choose their preferred Vice President and work to remove Trump after he wins the election. Or settle for a Biden reelection.
That's a helluva big blanket, surely you meant to say it differently.
It's intended to express a point of view common among Trump supporters. Although that point of view also seems present among supporters of Robert Kennedy. And don't leave out the UFO crowd, although the elite seem to have adopted a pandering position.
There must be due process. These things cannot be adjudicated in the pages of a newspaper.
Bazinga. Spot on.
We regularly disagree but we also regularly agree. Like in this case.
Common sense - good to see especially among the ignorant nasty partisan comments that chase away possible new members to this site.
So true Buzz - I hadn't thought of it that way - who knowingly would want to deal with such taunting trolling and ignorant nonsense practiced by some members.
Projection
[deleted]
The court of law and the court of public opinion are two different things.
The issue with Trump is his fitness to run for election and hold office. The issue of "innocent until proven guilty" is irrelevant to that. I wish people would stop saying that because he hasnt been convicted yet he's good to go, because it is idiotic.
Trump is and will be a known traitor to the United States even if he never gets convicted.
Yes, they are. You need to think about how each one works.
The court of law is where matters of the Constitution are decided. You want to talk about legal terms like “insurrection” or matters of law like the 14th Amendment? Then the proper venue for adjudication is a court of law.
The only adjudicating done by the court of public opinion happens at the ballot. If you want to cite “fitness for office,” that’s where the matter is settled.
I wish you and others would stop ignoring the requirements of law just because you want a certain outcome. Ignoring the Constitution and its protections - like due process - sounds just as un-American to me as anything Trump or his minions might propose.
This country and our system of laws is supposed to stand for something. Real justice has to have a process that applies to all people, or our fancy words mean nothing. I don’t know what you’re fighting for, but it’s not America. You just want what you want and you don’t appear to care how you get it.
A court of law may adjudicate in agreement with public opinion but it does not rely solely on public opinion for justice. Not ever. Not real justice.
It is suppose to be unbiased by design. Something the TDS ridden will never be again. If they ever were in the first place.