You-know-who may be disqualified from even running for President
Forums:
Trump Is Disqualified From Holding Office, Conservative Law Professors Argue
Two constitutional law academics determined that the Constitution bars Trump from becoming president again due to his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.
Two conservative law professors argue that Donald Trump is ineligible to serve as president again due to a section of the Constitution that prohibits anyone who has engaged in insurrection from holding office.
William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas explain their conclusion in an article set to be published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review. The constitutional scholars, both active in the conservative Federalist Society, studied the question for more than a year, according to The New York Times.
“When we started out, neither of us was sure what the answer was,” Baude told the Times, adding that they engaged in the research to settle “an important constitutional question.”
The answer, according to Baude: “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.”
The provision they studied is Section Three of the 14th Amendment, which states that any person who took an oath to support the U.S. Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof,” is prohibited from holding any government office.
Full story here: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-disqualified-office-law-professors_...
So if state officials in blue states choose to disqualify him and keep him off the ballot....?
- Log in to post comments
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: GDTRFB
Indeed. I have been watching
Indeed. I have been watching this a bit and while it seems fairly clearly spelled out, especially if convicted, it might still be up to the individual Secretary of States and the ones more likely to block him from the ballot would also more likely be states that wouldn't ultimately be adding electoral votes to his column anyway. The lingering issue and associated discussion would seem to at least be an unfavorable "set-back".
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Strangha
>>>the ones more likely to
>>>the ones more likely to block him from the ballot would also more likely be states that wouldn't ultimately be adding electoral votes to his column anyway
You're right, so maybe a non-issue. But the constitutional disqualification argument remains and looms as a possible roadblock Hmmm, maybe he did finally build a "wall" after all. We'll see.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: El Nino
>>>maybe he did finally build
>>>maybe he did finally build a "wall" after all. We'll see.
I dream that he goes to federal prison in TX and is put on a work detail building the border wall.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Astro
Writing is on the wall and it
Writing is on the wall and it amounts to damage control.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Semolina Pilchard
> Two constitutional law
> Two constitutional law academics
I was reading about this in the New York Times this morning, and found it interesting that these are conservative attorneys who are active in the Federalist Society, aka the group mostly responsible for the current conservative supermajority of the current US Supreme Court.
The article I read in the Times noted that "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. 'There are many ways that this could become a lawsuit presenting a vital constitutional issue that potentially the Supreme Court would want to hear and decide,' Professor Paulsen [one of the authors of the law review article] said."
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Floating Flasher
it's the first thing that
it's the first thing that should happen
fucksake with this country already
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Bob
Try convincing these
Try convincing these spineless, gutless, despicable republican sheep. I guarantee you the majority of them have never even read the full constitution, let alone understand it.