KEY WEST LOU / SOME BELIEVE TRUMP ALREADY DISQUALIFIED FROM HOLDING PUBLIC OFFICE
A different approach prohibiting Trump from becoming President again made the print this past week. It took form in an article in The Hill which reviewed a recent law review article involving disqualification in holding public office.
My blog today covers both The Hill article and law review article. The Hill presentation so well done that most of my blog is a plagarization of it.
The Hill published the article yesterday. Titled: The Constitution Bars Trump From Holding Public Office Ever Again. Its author in an Opinion piece by Donald K. Sherman relied strongly on a law review article published in the University of Pennsylvania Law review, vol. 172, 8/14/23, titled: The Sweep and Force of Section Three.. It was authored by two law professors: William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas. Both are members of the conservative Federalist Society, which gives credence to the law review article.
A law review is a scholarly law journal that focuses on legal issues. A type of legal periodical. Each article deeply researched. A law review also provides a scholarly analysis of emerging concepts involving various topics. Lengthy, comprehensive subjects are generally written by law professors, judges and legal practitioners. Short articles, commonly referred to as “notes” or “comments,” by top law students.
In The Sweep and Force of Section Three, the two law Professors claim Trump is already Constitutionally forbidden from serving in public office because of Section Three of the 14th Amendment. The Section is known as the Disqualification Clause. The Disqualification Clause bars from office any government officer who takes an oath to defend the Constitution and then engages in or aids an insurrection against the United States. A disability only a two thirds majority of both houses of Congress can act to remove.
As Professors Baude and Paulsen note, “Section Three requires no prior criminal law conviction, for treason or any other defined crime as a prerequisite for its disqualification to apply.”
Which means Trump is already disqualified without a guilty verdict forthcoming in any of the pending cases against him.
The provision is “self-executing without the need for additional action by Congress.” The Professors note that Section Three “can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications.”
The Professors further indicate that “the free speech principles of the 1st Amendment are superseded by Section Three.”
I’d like to hear what some other respected Constitutional scholars think about the application of the Disqualification Clause, including former Federal Judge and respected scholar J. Michael Luttig.
I find the Disqualification concept interesting. Whether applicable is for legal theorists with capacities far beyond mine.
Enjoy your day!
[livemarket market_name="KONK Life LiveMarket" limit=3 category=“” show_signup=0 show_more=0]
You know it’s not just on April Fool’s Day that you can’t believe everything that you read in the newspaper. Think about how many “news” stories you read based upon the premise that some people say. Stories about fictitious people are generally propaganda designed to introduce and idea that is outside the mainstream and normalize it in small minds.