"Immediate disqualification": Conservative legal scholars say Constitution bars Trump from office

[ItsjustMe]

“Immediate disqualification”: Conservative legal scholars say Constitution bars Trump from office

Two prominent conservative legal scholars determined that former President Donald Trump is ineligible to be president under a provision in the Constitution barring people who engaged in insurrection from office.

Professors William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas — both members of the conservative Federalist Society — studied the question for more than a year and detailed their findings in an article set to be published next year in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, according to The New York Times.

"When we started out, neither of us was sure what the answer was," Baude told the outlet. "People were talking about this provision of the Constitution. We thought: 'We're constitutional scholars, and this is an important constitutional question. We ought to figure out what's really going on here.' And the more we dug into it, the more we realized that we had something to add."

[spooky3]

1. This is a very important article, not only for the content, but also

Because it may persuade Federalist Society judges and justices.

[JohnSJ]

5. The federalist society helped create the monster trump, and only because they believe he will win

the repuke nomination, but lose the general, are they doing this

The federalist society lost any credibility as a conservative group years ago

[spooky3]

7. ITA. But I suspect Trump has a better chance than any of

His GQP rivals. So sidelining him won’t accomplish their goal, IMHO.

[Best_man23]

11. 100% on this

They know if the Insurrectionist gets to the general, they will lose and Dark Brandon will have another term in which to nominate qualified jurists to the federal bench and potentially rebalance the SCOTUS by adding four justices.

[underpants]

2. Sooner or later the Federalist Society had to have a positive impact

[Best_man23]

10. And eventually even a blind dog finds a bone

Don't trust those fascist supporters as far as I can throw em.

[Bucky]

16. Thank you

I also think the reasoning is. Much as I'd like Trump be a million miles from the White House, their basic argument is that state executive branches (such as election officials) have the power to remove Trump's name from Republican primary elections in early 2024. Their legal authority comes from the 14th amendment section 3.

The problem is that this denies Trump due process. No matter how much we believe he's guilty, that has to be established in a court of law. Otherwise he's being denied his due process.

And some people are like, "fuck Trump we don't owe him anything". And they're right; we don't. But we are a nation of laws and we owe it to the law respecting the letter and intent of the law. In other words, we owe it to ourselves and the future of the country to do this correctly.

[Skittles]

3. he never conceded, then tried to overthrow the government

it is fucking INSANE he is allowed to run again

[Think. Again.]

4. Salon needs a new editor...

The headline of the article put together the words 'conservative', 'legal', and 'scholars'.

It's like a multi-oxi-moron!

[Think. Again.]

6. I love the concept, but...

...in America, you have to be found guilty of an offence in order to be considered guilty of that offence, maybe these "legal scholars" should do a little more studying?

[spooky3]

8. It's true, but I think the authors are arguing that they have

Seen the evidence (and we have seen a ton of it and have heard TFG’s weak responses to it) and are convinced he engaged in insurrection. It’s not much of an intellectual leap.

See also this article, which says an express conviction is NOT required:

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10569#:~:text=Section%203%20of%20the%20Fourteenth%20Amendment%20does%20not%20expressly%20require,to%20refuse%20to%20seat%20Members.

[Think. Again.]

9. Yeah but,...

...that's one of the many problems with conservatives, they think that because they believe something, that makes it true for everybody.

If they just said that they believe he's guilt and, if found guilty in a court of law, he would be disqualified, that would be one thing.

But no, they're conservatives, so they immediately skipped over all the important American stuff and are saying he is disqualified because they believe he's guilty.

[spooky3]

12. Please see the article I linked. Nt

[Think. Again.]

13. Unless the article verifies...

....that juat anyone, scholar, baker, candlesticks maker, can decide the legal guilt which would constitutionally disqualify him, what should I be looking for in it?

Edited to add:

Okay, I looked at the link you posted, and now I'm confused.

Are we supposed to now abide by a legal system that DOESN'T define "guilty" as dependent on judicial findings?

Must we now do away with "presumed innocent until found guilty by a court of law"?

That's a very scary road to go down....

[republianmushroom]

14. And those in the congress and the senate (?).

When do they answer for their part in the insurrection ?

[dweller]

17. Also covered by 14A Sec 3

Anyone involved in insurrection against US is ineligible
Have read the article in discussion here

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=18172061


✌🏻

[BWdem4life]

15. Set to be published next year??!!!