Legal scholars increasingly raise constitutional argument that Trump should be barred from presidency

MicroWave@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world – 965 points – Legal scholars increasingly raise constitutional argument that Trump should be barred from presidency | CNN Politics
cnn.com

Prominent conservative legal scholars are increasingly raising a constitutional argument that 2024 Republican candidate Donald Trump should be barred from the presidency because of his actions to overturn the previous presidential election result.

124

You are viewing a single comment
View all comments

I found the original Atlantic article better written: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/donald-trump-constitutionally-prohibited-presidency/675048/

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office:

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.

If you want that block quote to format correctly, don't indent the >. That way it will turn out like this, instead of a single line that can't fit on the screen without scrolling (some mobile clients like Sync, probably show it alright, but the web client certainly doesn't.):

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.

Whoops, the indentation was copied over from the source. Corrected, thanks.

engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

Convict him of this and he won't be able to run.

The amendment doesn't require conviction, just engagement.

A conviction is the only way to prove engagement legally. Like you can pass a law that says sex offender can't do X. But you can't enforce it upon someone whose not on the sex offender list.