Conservative Case Emerges to Disqualify Trump for Role on Jan. 6

This could also have gone under breaking news but the media hasn't picked up on it yet, the paper has yet to be published but there is already a lot of talk about it in pre-print. The two authors of the paper are two very, very conservative constitutional professors who are active in the Federalist Society. This is the same group that has shaped the current Supreme Court and has great influence over American law and Republican politics.

They find that, after a year of research into the Constitution, due to his participation in an insurrection against the United States, Donald Trump is ineligible to not only be a president again but to even run for president as a candidate. His candidacy is illegal and for him to continue he would have to be absolved of his crimes by two thirds of the Congress first. Only then could he even be a candidate for office.

Here is a link to an early article, and within it a link to a longer NYT article behind a paywall: Link

Two prominent conservative law professors have concluded that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to be president under a provision of the Constitution that bars people who have engaged in an insurrection from holding government office. The professors are active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, and proponents of originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning.

Their paper is a 126 pages long, but here is excerpt from the abstract:

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal consequences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.

First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications.

Here is a link to the paper, where you can download it as a PDF: Link

I have not gotten through all of it yet, but it is a very informative read so far and will completely shake up the presidential race. The paper will also carry great weight, coming from the Federalist Society professors and active members, it may even influence future Supreme Court decisions. It is important to note that this Section 3 does not just apply to the president but any person who engaged in rebellion or insurrection against the US, effectively invalidating some of the positions of the current members of Congress. It describes that the Congress can vote with a two thirds majority to remove those members from office, but it also says that that is not necessary as they were immediately disqualified from holding office under the Constitutional provision that are effective and enforceable at all times. Action is not needed.

What these professors are saying is that we have some illegitimate people currently holding office. Anyone who aided the Jan 6 rebellion.

Looks like we're in for a few years of very difficult legal battles in the US and potentially impeachments in the Congress, both houses.

a reply to: Mahogany

Just a quick question.

Where is the charge and conviction of Trump for insurrection?

ETA

Here is the lynch pin of their entire argument in addition to my question above:

There is, the article said, “abundant evidence” that Mr. Trump engaged in an insurrection, including by setting out to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election, trying to alter vote counts by fraud and intimidation, encouraging bogus slates of competing electors, pressuring the vice president to violate the Constitution, calling for the march on the Capitol and remaining silent for hours during the attack itself.

They have no way of knowing objectively what is or isn't actual evidence. Their theory relies on allegations alone.

Even if Trump is guilty of all he is alleged to have done, it's still not an insurrection charge and conviction.

What a hack job.

Trying again. WB machine link

web.archive.org...://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/trump-jan-6-insurrection-conservatives.html

One must first presume the idiocy of that day constitutes "insurrection".
I've yet to meet a "conservative" that does.
This looks like a establishment attempt to woo over converts by saying "See! See! Other conservatives agree!".

a reply to: Mahogany

Last I checked, Trump has not been convicted of ANYTHING.
What a friggin' waste of time.

Two prominent conservative law professors have concluded something? You dont say.

originally posted by: dandandat2
Two prominent conservative law professors have concluded something? You dont say.

If I find a liberal legal professor that says the exact opposite of what the OP is purporting, do I win?

(Alan Dershowitz)

Yeah, this is likely the dumbest thing I have seen today, and I have seen a lot today since it's my day off. Oooh, more college professors who hate Trump.. They probably were paid extra for this.

I would rather the heading is altered a little, and more to describe it as, 'to Disqualify Trump because of his Role on Jan. 6'

I have no idea why it took so long re, Trump, to come to such a conclusion in regard to law makers, or the general public??

If there are any more naughty boys and girls about in government circles, concerning related or unrelated matters, the same discipline should be applicable.. regardless of the blatancy of Trump's actions.

a reply to: Mahogany

Mate your entire Op including the Liberal Professors theory is based on the predication that President Trump is guilty of something .

and last I checked .....

These people really want a civil war, they have been planning on it and wanting it for many many years. They think they finally have all of their ducks in a row and are practically salavating all over themselves. They can't wait to jail all these unintelligent racist sexist homophobic people they hate so much.

I think they aren't really going to get what they want regardless if they win or lose.

My entire thinking life I have always wondered what these people find so attractive about marxist theory and other perversions. They never cause anything but misery.

I suppose if you are internally miserable, you must want others to be as miserable as you are.

Sorry, a little off track with the OP, but I can tell what a private conversation with these professors would be like if I were forced to endure it.

a reply to: greendust

People who intentionally profit from the suffering and death of others don’t care what is done to those they impose hardship upon… until their own start suffering and dying… that day will come… not soon enough… but it’s getting here…

originally posted by: Mahogany
This could also have gone under breaking news but the media hasn't picked up on it yet, the paper has yet to be published but there is already a lot of talk about it in pre-print. The two authors of the paper are two very, very conservative constitutional professors who are active in the Federalist Society. This is the same group that has shaped the current Supreme Court and has great influence over American law and Republican politics.

They find that, after a year of research into the Constitution, due to his participation in an insurrection against the United States, Donald Trump is ineligible to not only be a president again but to even run for president as a candidate. His candidacy is illegal and for him to continue he would have to be absolved of his crimes by two thirds of the Congress first. Only then could he even be a candidate for office.

Here is a link to an early article, and within it a link to a longer NYT article behind a paywall: Link

Two prominent conservative law professors have concluded that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to be president under a provision of the Constitution that bars people who have engaged in an insurrection from holding government office. The professors are active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, and proponents of originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning.

Their paper is a 126 pages long, but here is excerpt from the abstract:

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal consequences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.

First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications.

Here is a link to the paper, where you can download it as a PDF: Link

I have not gotten through all of it yet, but it is a very informative read so far and will completely shake up the presidential race. The paper will also carry great weight, coming from the Federalist Society professors and active members, it may even influence future Supreme Court decisions. It is important to note that this Section 3 does not just apply to the president but any person who engaged in rebellion or insurrection against the US, effectively invalidating some of the positions of the current members of Congress. It describes that the Congress can vote with a two thirds majority to remove those members from office, but it also says that that is not necessary as they were immediately disqualified from holding office under the Constitutional provision that are effective and enforceable at all times. Action is not needed.

What these professors are saying is that we have some illegitimate people currently holding office. Anyone who aided the Jan 6 rebellion.

Looks like we're in for a few years of very difficult legal battles in the US and potentially impeachments in the Congress, both houses.

Very, very conservative?

Meh, sounds like they're Liz Cheney fans.

If you had said/typed "very, very, VERY conservative" then I may be a tad bit bothered enough to pay attention to what their *opinions* happen to be.

America should be labeled a wildlife reserve with all the RINOs roaming around.

😅👍🇺🇸

a reply to: TheMindOfMax

Very, very conservative?

Interesting right ?

Our Liberal colleague 'Mahogany' was banking on the Conservative professor to give his OP credit .

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: dandandat2
Two prominent conservative law professors have concluded something? You dont say.

If I find a liberal legal professor that says the exact opposite of what the OP is purporting, do I win?

Alan Dershowitz,

Alan Dershowitz,

I am pretty sure that he would not like to interpretlaw but more like enforce it, hence his stance on impeachment in certain areas..when required to!

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow
a reply to: TheMindOfMax

Very, very conservative?

Interesting right ?

Our Liberal colleague 'Mahogany' was banking on the Conservative professor to give his OP credit .

Just so you know the counselors at the asylum don’t refer to the patients as “colleagues”… 😜👍

a reply to: greendust

You believe that the federalist society want a civil war? Why would they want that?

Who are the federalist society and why do they matter?

a reply to: Mahogany

William Baude, the paper's co-author is a Mitch McConnell Republican. For example, he doesn't like how Joe Biden broke the law by forgiving student loans, but he's against punishing Biden for breaking the law.

www.law.uchicago.edu...

He's young, smart, weird, and still "finding himself".

Oh...and he is a New York Times contributor.

originally posted by: SwissMarked
a reply to: greendust

People who intentionally profit from the suffering and death of others don’t care what is done to those they impose hardship upon… until their own start suffering and dying… that day will come… not soon enough… but it’s getting here…

HOW TRUE! Recent example is how Democrats didn't care how many people (voters) Joe Biden allowed entry to our country illegally, until they started showing up in Liberal-run "sanctuary" cities.

a reply to: Mahogany

" They find that, after a year of research into the Constitution, due to his participation in an insurrection against the United States,"

What , You a Fortune Teller ? By the Way , WHAT Insurrection ? Do you make a Living at Lying ?