"Immediate disqualification": Conservative legal scholars say Constitution bars Trump from office
Immediate disqualification: Conservative legal scholars say Constitution bars Trump from officeTwo 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
(36,847 posts)Because it may persuade Federalist Society judges and justices.
JohnSJ
(97,267 posts)the repuke nomination, but lose the general, are they doing this
The federalist society lost any credibility as a conservative group years ago
spooky3
(36,847 posts)His GQP rivals. So sidelining him wont accomplish their goal, IMHO.
Best_man23
(5,137 posts)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
(188,309 posts)Best_man23
(5,137 posts)Don't trust those fascist supporters as far as I can throw em.
Bucky
(55,334 posts)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
(161,488 posts)it is fucking INSANE he is allowed to run again
Think. Again.
(21,256 posts)The headline of the article put together the words 'conservative', 'legal', and 'scholars'.
It's like a multi-oxi-moron!
Think. Again.
(21,256 posts)...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
(36,847 posts)Seen the evidence (and we have seen a ton of it and have heard TFGs weak responses to it) and are convinced he engaged in insurrection. Its 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.
(21,256 posts)...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
(36,847 posts)Think. Again.
(21,256 posts)....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
(18,646 posts)When do they answer for their part in the insurrection ?
dweller
(25,504 posts)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
(2,504 posts)