Two conservative legal scholars, members of the Federalist Society in good standing, have just published an audacious argument: that Donald Trump is constitutionally prohibited from running for president, and that state election officials have not only the authority but the legal obligation to prevent his name from appearing on the ballot.
Spicy!
You guys should have let him win and end his second term.
All this crap is just elevating him to martyrdom, and god forbid you actually put him in jail before the elections. This has trendously backfire so many times throughout history. 100 years are gonna pass and you will still have people being trumpists wearing maga hats.
You’re an idiot because that was going to happen either way, as they are already a cult. We need to face the fact that Trump is the new Joseph Smith/L Ron Hubbard/Jim Jones, leading his congregation of fascists. MAGA is going to be something we’re going to be dealing with at least as long as Trump lives, if not longer.
Four more years of Trump would have allowed him to solidify his power and end democracy in the United States, he needed to be voted out, if not more direct means of removal.
I may be an idiot but it’s cute that you think it cannot get worse since they “are already a cult”.
a second term of trump now will be an order of magnitude worse.
Trump as a martyr is still better than Trump as POTUS. Believing that criminals should just get out of charges because of if their station or their potential martyrdom is the biggest issue with the US legal system. It creates a separate set of laws only for the rich and elite. The biggest failure through all of this legal stuff is that he’s allowed to walk around free instead of spending time in jail like everyone else would. Lock him up and take away his social media access, and his message will be mitigated reducing the martyr effect.
Should have let him “win”? First off his plan was thwarted by his own party, his own staff, and his own appointed judges. Virtually all his political opponents did is critism him from a distance.
But let’s pretend that everyone should have helped steal the election, or voted for him out of fear (yikes), you really think this guy was ever gonna leave the white house, even after a 2nd term?
He’s been hinting at being president for life a few times, and he was slowly replacing all the top positions in the country by loyalist. Meanwhile, his supporters were absolutely thrilled at the idea that Ivanka should be his successors, and that we should live under the Trump dynasty. After a 2nd term he would have pulled some shit, created a crisis out of his own to justify extending his presidential powers, and if he succeeded, that would have been it. He telegraphied his every move and a lot of peolle in 2016 already knew he would not leave willingly and call the next election rigged. He telegraphied wanting to be president for life, and you can be absolutely sure that he would not have stopped at a 2nd term.
Wow, the federalist society has turned on him? Maybe that’s not new, but it sure is crazy how much conservatives with power regret using him.
This will 1,000,000% be a thing mark my words. Conservatives are twister Grandmasters. Happily bending themselves into inhuman and unsurvivable knots
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Baude and Paulsen’s paper, set to be published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, focusing on plain-language readings on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and the way its key terms were used in political discussion around the time of enactment.
If this interpretation is correct, then the legal case against Trump is fairly straightforward — all established by facts in public reporting, evidence from the January 6 committee, and the recent federal indictment.
Even if (let’s say) the members of a state board of elections think someone below the drinking age would make the best president in American history, the law is clear that such a person can’t hold office and thus can’t be permitted to run.
Every official involved in the US election system, from a local registrar to members of Congress, has an obligation to determine if candidates for the presidency and other high office are prohibited from running under Section 3.
Moreover, state election officials are not federal judges; the very existence of Griffin’s Case, however poorly reasoned, creates real doubt as to whether they are legally empowered to do what Baude and Paulsen are telling them they have to do.
Best case, there’s a write-in campaign to put Trump in the presidency, giving rise to a constitutional crisis if he won (since the Supreme Court would have ruled him ineligible in upholding the state officials’ actions).
I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Doesn’t matter. This is America where things like that are ignored. This is how people like Clarence Thomas can keep their job. Corruption and criminality are rewarded in America. But only if you’re in politics.
Seriously anyone remember the issue with Emoluments? They were specifically banned in the constitution, and the Government was sued over it, and then the Supreme court sat on it until Trump was no longer president and then the supreme ruled it moot. Republicans will not play by the rules.
The issue we have is that the checks for a bad actor are impeachment and elections. The founders thought “surely, elected officials would put country over party”. They were wrong there, so now impeachment is ineffective.
The founders thought “surely, voters wouldn’t elect an immortal leader”. Again, dead wrong.
Voting is really the only effective check at this point, which is why Republicans try to undermine it at every turn. Vote in every election!
If only we could vote out a Supreme Court member. But ironically those that sit on the highest court in the country are held accountable by nobody, and serve for life.
I hope you mean immoral which while being really bad would not be as bad as an immortal ruler.
Yes. An exception would seem to be Bernie Madoff. But it wasn’t the amount of money.
He had to be punished because he ripped off other rich people.
I think he means that wealthy people get the same treatment as those in politics.
You literally ended your comment with “only if you’re in politics.”
Relax, though. We’re all on the same side here. I upvoted your original post. I just wanted it to be clear that wealthy people are also immune. They are also often rewarded for their misdeeds after they hire a PR team to spin things.
I would love to see it happen but will remain pessimistic. It seems all the wealthy people get away with whatever they want.
I think he’s ineligible for office for so many reasons but this argument is pretty weak. It just won’t go anywhere other than Lincoln Project masturbation.
It relies on everyone agreeing that Trump’s actions equates to insurrection. So it’s assuming the conclusion.
He isn’t even being charged with the crime of “insurrection.” There are legal definitions of the term and he hasn’t met them, according to rhe Special Counsel at least. So it’s extremely hard to make the case that his actions in particular amount to disqualifying actions legally, for him.
There’s easy evidence that he shouldn’t be president, you just shouldn’t vote for him in the primary or the general, but the bar for saying he is currently legally barred from running is so high and the argument essentially assumes the conclusion. If you assume that yes he did commit insurrection, he is barred…but how does one say that is legally the case if he has not been found guilty of that in a court of law?
His actions are covered under 14a s3 without a conviction based on this one part:
given aid or comfort
By refusing to call in the national guard, and then promising to give pardons to all who were convicted fall under that clause
