Apparently, it could all come back to some interesting speculation in a forthcoming article by one of SCOTUS Justice Roberts’s former clerks who teaches at University of Chicago Law.
Two prominent conservative law professors have concluded that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to be president under a provision of the Constitution that bars people who have engaged in an insurrection from holding government office. The professors are active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, and proponents of originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning.
The professors — William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas — studied the question for more than a year and detailed their findings in a long article to be published next year in The University of Pennsylvania Law Review.
Baude summarized the article’s conclusion: “Donald Trump cannot be president — cannot run for president, cannot become president, cannot hold office — unless two-thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct on Jan. 6.”
A law review article will not, of course, change the reality that Mr. Trump is the Republican front-runner and that voters remain free to assess whether his conduct was blameworthy. But the scope and depth of the article may encourage and undergird lawsuits from other candidates and ordinary voters arguing that the Constitution makes him ineligible for office.
www.nytimes.com/...
Trump: “My name is Donald J. Trump... John...Donald John Trump…I am seven seven years old.”
Donald Trump is hit with a brutal Friday bombshell as lawyers publish a paper declaring that Trump MUST be banned from running for president “under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.”
William Baude
University of Chicago - Law School
Michael Stokes Paulsen
University of St. Thomas School of Law
Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal consequences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.
- First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation.
- Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications.*
- Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment.
- Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency.
And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.
The new article examined the historical evidence illuminating the meaning of the provision at great length, using the methods of originalism. It drew on, among other things, contemporaneous dictionary definitions, other provisions of the Constitution using similar language, “the especially strong evidence from 1860s Civil War era political and legal usage of nearly the precise same terms” and the early enforcement of the provision.
The article concluded that essentially all of that evidence pointed in the same direction: “toward a broad understanding of what constitutes insurrection and rebellion and a remarkably, almost extraordinarily, broad understanding of what types of conduct constitute engaging in, assisting, or giving aid or comfort to such movements.”
www.nytimes.com/…
* Second. Section Three is legally self-executing.
That is, Section Three's disqualification is constitutionally automatic whenever its terms are satisfied. Section Three requires no legislation or adjudication to be legally effective. It is enacted by the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment. Its disqualification, where triggered, just is. It follows that Section Three's disqualification may and should be followed and carried out by all whose duties are affected by it. In many cases, Section Three will give rise to judiciable controversies in the courts. In others it will be enforceable by state and federal officials. But no prior judicial decision, and no implementing legislation, is required for Section Three to be carried out by officials sworn to uphold the Constitution whose duties present the occasion for applying Section Three's commands. Section Three is ready for use.
Trump's attorney John Lauro: We're asking the government to show good cause. Your honor designated those items under rule 16 and case law - extrajudicial speech, or public speech is not one of the good cause factor.
Judge: It is if that speech causes witness intimidation or harassment. It must always yield. Mr. Trump, like every American, has a first amendment right to free speech. But that right is not absolute.
Lauro: We don't have a normal situation.
Judge: What about a situation where a person is denigrating a witness? What is meant to protect that from happening?
Lauro: Obviously since prosecutors brought this case in the middle of campaign, Trump has right to respond to political opponents.
Judge: But that has to yield. Regardless of what is going on with his, I hate to say, his day job, this is a criminal case. The need for this to proceed in normal order and protect witnesses, integrity of process means there are going to be limits on defendant's speech.
Lauro: My client can't be subject to a contempt trap.
Judge: What we're talking about here are the parameters of this order. What we're all considering means there are certain things, if they have impact on the administration of justice or witnesses, can't be said regardless of what political activity the defendant is engaged in.
Lauro: If my client has a memory of something on the campaign trail that he wants to talk about, he's entitled to speak about it.
Judge: No, he can't speak about details of the case he's being tried on.
A key element that may come out in the months ahead will be the connection between the sedition HQ at the Willard Hotel and the White House in 2020.
A Convergence of Trump’s Allies
The Willard Hotel was more than a meeting place; it became the headquarters for those committed to executing Trump’s alleged plan to subvert the will of the American people. According to reports from The Washington Post, key figures like Rudy Giuliani, Steve Bannon, and John Eastman converged at the Willard, strategizing and coordinating their efforts.
The proximity to the White House provided an ideal location for those involved, but more importantly, it became a physical manifestation of the shadowy campaign being waged. The Willard was where the abstract web of lies and deceit was spun into a tangible plot.
A Direct Connection to the President
Beyond mere planning, the Willard Hotel was a place of direct communication with Trump himself. As reported by The Guardian, the Capitol attack panel is investigating a call made by Trump to the Willard Hotel in the hours before the assault. The details of this call may prove to be a critical piece of evidence in understanding the President’s direct role in the events that unfolded.
The Willard’s Legacy in the Attack on Democracy
The days and weeks leading up to January 6 saw the transformation of the Willard Hotel from a historic landmark to a center of anti-democratic scheming. Trump’s associates, in their alleged attempts to deny Biden the presidency, utilized the Willard as a fortress from which to launch their assault on the principles that underpin American society.
theintellectualist.com/...