Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

Prairie_Seagull

(4,452 posts)
Mon Aug 14, 2023, 09:30 AM Aug 2023

The constitutional case that Donald Trump is already banned from being president [View all]

https://www.vox.com/23828477/trump-2024-14th-amendment-banned
many other sources as well.
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.

The legal paper, authored by University of Chicago professor William Baude and University of St. Thomas professor Michael Stokes Paulsen, centers on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — a provision that limits people from returning to public office if they have since “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or “given aid or comfort” to those who have. Baude and Paulsen argue that this clearly covers Trump’s behavior between November 2020 and January 2021.

“The most politically explosive application of Section Three to the events of January 6, is at the same time the most straightforward,” Baude and Paulsen write. “Former President Donald J. Trump is constitutionally disqualified from again being President (or holding any other covered office) because of his role in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 election and the events leading to the January 6 attack.”

The consequences of this argument are astonishing. On Baude and Paulsen’s read, Section 3 is “self-executing” — meaning it does not require an act of Congress to enter force and binds those public officials in the position to act on its dictates. Basically, if a single official anywhere in the US electoral system finds their constitutional analysis compelling, Baude and Paulsen urge them to act on it.



Just got back from an unplugged road trip. If this has already been posted...
These are federalist society constitutional 'scholars'.
34 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
That idea floated on DU more than 18 months ago bucolic_frolic Aug 2023 #1
It's everwhere as of 3 days ago. Thought it had merit. nt Prairie_Seagull Aug 2023 #2
It does have merit, your post is fine. bucolic_frolic Aug 2023 #4
Nothing in the Constitution requires such a conviction. Hermit-The-Prog Aug 2023 #3
History, and reality says it does require a conviction Fiendish Thingy Aug 2023 #9
You may want to check recent history. Hermit-The-Prog Aug 2023 #14
So who's been disqualified without trial in the last 150+ years? Polybius Aug 2023 #17
I don't understand the question or its basis. Hermit-The-Prog Aug 2023 #18
No court would disqualify Trump from running without coviction Polybius Aug 2023 #19
That's a bold statement unsupported by facts. Hermit-The-Prog Aug 2023 #20
Facts are you're getting you hops up for nothing Polybius Aug 2023 #21
You're still confusing me. The 14th A says nothing about a conviction for anything. Hermit-The-Prog Aug 2023 #22
But in the real world.. Fiendish Thingy Aug 2023 #26
Griffin was disqualified *after* he was convicted. Nt Fiendish Thingy Aug 2023 #25
The New Mexico case of the Jan 6 participant disallowed from run for public office by civil lawsuit hlthe2b Aug 2023 #5
Agree. The debate is how it is enforced. bucolic_frolic Aug 2023 #6
The nominated vp would be the candidate..... getagrip_already Aug 2023 #13
The New Mexico case required a conviction before the judge would rule Fiendish Thingy Aug 2023 #8
Not insurrection charges. hlthe2b Aug 2023 #12
The charges were related to January 6. Nt Fiendish Thingy Aug 2023 #27
Yes. But if you (as others) are claiming charges must be specifically insurrection to activate hlthe2b Aug 2023 #29
I'm not saying one must be convicted specifically of insurrection to be disqualified Fiendish Thingy Aug 2023 #33
No, it did not. Hermit-The-Prog Aug 2023 #15
The judge did not rule until after he was convicted. Fiendish Thingy Aug 2023 #28
Go back and read paragraph #50 again Fiendish Thingy Aug 2023 #30
Meanwhile, back in the real world... Fiendish Thingy Aug 2023 #7
Please list the "dozens, if not hundreds of Democratic candidates" who are insurrectionists. Hermit-The-Prog Aug 2023 #16
That would be up to the MAGA judges to decide, wouldn't it? Fiendish Thingy Aug 2023 #32
The constitutional case for Trump being ineligible was already made--by Donald Trump DFW Aug 2023 #10
K&R. William769 Aug 2023 #11
Seems to me the impracticality of this needs to be addressed. Prairie_Seagull Aug 2023 #23
County commisioner removed by judge for Jan 6 illegal activity. Prairie_Seagull Aug 2023 #24
I guess you all know that 40 or 50 pro-Nazis were prosecuted... TreasonousBastard Aug 2023 #31
The lawsuits attempting to enforce this holding will be fun to watch LetMyPeopleVote Aug 2023 #34
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The constitutional case t...