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)The constitutional case that Donald Trump is already banned from being president [View all]
https://www.vox.com/23828477/trump-2024-14th-amendment-bannedmany 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 Trumps 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 Paulsens 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.
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 Trumps 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 Paulsens 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

The constitutional case that Donald Trump is already banned from being president [View all]
Prairie_Seagull
Aug 2023
OP
You're still confusing me. The 14th A says nothing about a conviction for anything.
Hermit-The-Prog
Aug 2023
#22
The New Mexico case of the Jan 6 participant disallowed from run for public office by civil lawsuit
hlthe2b
Aug 2023
#5
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
Please list the "dozens, if not hundreds of Democratic candidates" who are insurrectionists.
Hermit-The-Prog
Aug 2023
#16