On Saturday, a law professor and former federal judge outlined a backup plan in The Atlantic for the Democrat Party in case leading 2024 Republican presidential candidate and 45th President Donald Trump is able to overcome the four indictments brought against him by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, Fulton County DA Fani Willis, and Special Counsel Jack Smith.
In The Atlantic piece, authored by J. Michael Luttig and Laurence H. Tribe and titled 'The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again,' the two argue that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, known as the disqualification clause, forbids Trump from winning the White House.
Section 3 reads as such:
In addition to this argument, the two forward that the 14th Amendment does not require any sort of criminal conviction that stipulates that an offender engaged in "insurrection or rebellion" or assisted those who did. "Baude and Paulsen also conclude that Section 3 requires no legislation, criminal conviction, or other judicial action in order to effectuate its command," the two legal experts write.
The two do concede that the Supreme Court would have to determine what classifies as an "insurrection or rebellion" if a secretary of state, who could be from the opposing party, declared Trump ineligible to appear on the 2024 presidential ballot.
The two conclude the piece by arguing that if Trump is reelected, then the American people would not trust him to uphold his oath of office given his actions following the 2020 election.
In response to the article, Charlie Kirk blasted the duo as "sinister" and that nobody "is a bigger enemy of democratic elections or our Constitution than elite Democrats."
"In case you thought the legal offensive against President Trump wasn't sinister enough, left-wing law professors are now arguing that the 14th Amendment bars Trump from running for office again WITHOUT ANY criminal conviction," the CEO of Turning Point USA wrote. "They're arguing, in effect, that he is guilty until proven innocent, and they claim that any government official is empowered to pass this judgment on him."
"The obvious purpose of this is a backup plan," Kirk explained. "Even if all of Jack Smith and Fani Willis's rigged charges fail, their plan is to get swing-state radicals like Adrian Fontes in Arizona or Jocelyn Benson in Michigan to unilaterally kick Trump off the ballot in order to make the 2024 election unwinnable."
There are a number of holes in the authors' theory as well. Lawyer Robert Barnes points out that such an instance of a presidential candidate being charged, in the case cited with sedition, has already taken place in American history.
"The key problem with this #Luttig argument is history," Barnes explains. "We already had a Presidential candidate who was (unlike Trump) actually charged w/, convicted of, and in prison for sedition that sought the Presidential ballot. 1920, Eugene Debs. He was never denied access to the ballot."
In addition, it is suspect whether or not Section 3 of the 14th Amendment even applies to the office of the presidency given that the clause does not mention the president explicitly.
The 2024 election will change history. If Democrat officials were to take this step it would further shatter America's faith in the democratic process. Hopefully, such an action does not come to fruition and voters are able to decide who will win another four years in the White House.
In The Atlantic piece, authored by J. Michael Luttig and Laurence H. Tribe and titled 'The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again,' the two argue that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, known as the disqualification clause, forbids Trump from winning the White House.
Section 3 reads as such:
The two men, who cite an academic paper titled 'The Sweep and Force of Section Three' by legal scholars William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, argue that Trump's actions following the 2020 election disqualify him from serving as president again."No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
In addition to this argument, the two forward that the 14th Amendment does not require any sort of criminal conviction that stipulates that an offender engaged in "insurrection or rebellion" or assisted those who did. "Baude and Paulsen also conclude that Section 3 requires no legislation, criminal conviction, or other judicial action in order to effectuate its command," the two legal experts write.
The two do concede that the Supreme Court would have to determine what classifies as an "insurrection or rebellion" if a secretary of state, who could be from the opposing party, declared Trump ineligible to appear on the 2024 presidential ballot.
The two conclude the piece by arguing that if Trump is reelected, then the American people would not trust him to uphold his oath of office given his actions following the 2020 election.
In response to the article, Charlie Kirk blasted the duo as "sinister" and that nobody "is a bigger enemy of democratic elections or our Constitution than elite Democrats."
"In case you thought the legal offensive against President Trump wasn't sinister enough, left-wing law professors are now arguing that the 14th Amendment bars Trump from running for office again WITHOUT ANY criminal conviction," the CEO of Turning Point USA wrote. "They're arguing, in effect, that he is guilty until proven innocent, and they claim that any government official is empowered to pass this judgment on him."
"The obvious purpose of this is a backup plan," Kirk explained. "Even if all of Jack Smith and Fani Willis's rigged charges fail, their plan is to get swing-state radicals like Adrian Fontes in Arizona or Jocelyn Benson in Michigan to unilaterally kick Trump off the ballot in order to make the 2024 election unwinnable."
There are a number of holes in the authors' theory as well. Lawyer Robert Barnes points out that such an instance of a presidential candidate being charged, in the case cited with sedition, has already taken place in American history.
"The key problem with this #Luttig argument is history," Barnes explains. "We already had a Presidential candidate who was (unlike Trump) actually charged w/, convicted of, and in prison for sedition that sought the Presidential ballot. 1920, Eugene Debs. He was never denied access to the ballot."
In addition, it is suspect whether or not Section 3 of the 14th Amendment even applies to the office of the presidency given that the clause does not mention the president explicitly.
The 2024 election will change history. If Democrat officials were to take this step it would further shatter America's faith in the democratic process. Hopefully, such an action does not come to fruition and voters are able to decide who will win another four years in the White House.
You Can Follow Sterling on Twitter Here
- Article Source:
DC Enquirer
- Photo: The White House
‘Trump Exists As A F*ck You’: Fmr Obama Advisors Admit ‘Huge Swath’ Of Culture Backs Him
Trump Picks Linda McMahon As Secretary Of Education
From South Texas to the Swing States: Republicans Must Follow Trump Agenda to Replicate Electoral Success
Sign in to comment
Powered by StructureCMS™ Comments
Comments