Federalist Society Co-Founder on Disqualification of Donald Trump

Not too long ago we read a long paper from two conservative legal professors and scholars arguing Trump was disqualified from ever holding office again, or even running for one. Those two professors, Baude and Paulsen, are part of the Federalist Society, an ultra-conservative legal group that has been shaping our judicial branch for decades, all the way up to the Supreme Court.

A concurrent opinion came out that I missed, and came across recently. This one is from Steven Calabresi, a powerhouse in the republican legal world. Co-founder and co-chairman of the Federalist Society, a known libertarian mind and scholar who comes from a known family (Guido Calabresi is his uncle and a senior judge for 2nd circuit Court of Appeals, also used to be the Dean of Yale Law School).

In other words, a heavyweight that the Supreme Court, and many others, will take seriously.

He writes that Trump is unequivocally barred from seeking or holding office, based simply on the evidence available to the public.

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is self-enforcing. It is "the supreme Law of the Land" binding on each of the 50 State Secretaries of State and their subordinates who draw up primary or general election ballots.

State Secretaries of State and their subordinates may not list on their election ballots as candidates for President anyone who is not eligible to hold the office of President. To be eligible to hold the office of President, one must be: 1) a natural born Citizen; 2) thirty-five years or older; 3) a Resident of the United States for fourteen years; and 4) a person who has not broken their oath of office to support the Constitution by engaging "in insurrection or rebellion against the same."

No jury verdict is required to determine whether a candidate who seeks to run for the presidency on a primary or general election ballot is: a natural born citizen, who is 35 years of age, and fourteen years a resident of the United States. Likewise, no jury verdict or act of Congress is required to keep a Secretary of States and their subordinates from printing ballots with the name "Donald J. Trump" on them.

He uses the Webster dictionary to define an insurrection:

Webster's 1828 Dictionary of American English defines "insurrection" as follows:

INSURREC'TION, noun [Latin insurgo; in and surgo, to rise.] 1. A rising against civil or political authority; the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of a law in a city or state. It is equivalent to sedition, except that sedition expresses a less extensive rising of citizens. It differs from rebellion, for the latter expresses a revolt, or an attempt to overthrow the government, to establish a different one or to place the country under another jurisdiction. It differs from mutiny, as it respects the civil or political government; whereas a mutiny is an open opposition to law in the army or navy, insurrection is however used with such latitude as to comprehend either sedition or rebellion.

______________________________


All of these people currently pushing for Trump's disqualification are Republicans. They're all hardcore conservatives. The legislator up in NH that Sununu shut down is also a republican. He wanted to start the process to keep Trump off NH ballot. That won't happen, for now. But we have to acknowledge that it is the republicans leading this charge -- and it is the only way it can happen.

If it were the democrats who wanted this and were pushing for it, it would just be called a witch hunt, fake news or politicking. When life long republicans ask for it, well respected legal icons, it's not so much of a witch hunt any more. They may get called RINOs by the far right, but other legal scholars and ultimately the Supreme Court won't pay much heed to those calls. RINO just means part of the Republican Party and not the Trump Republican Party, and the second one does not exist in the real world.

There is more to what he wrote than what I quoted above, but it's not a very long read. It's not like that 126 page legal paper from Baude and Paulsen. A very salient point he makes is that this does not even need to go before the courts, which it may and likely will, but under the constitution, anyone who has taken an oath to uphold it has to disqualify Donald Trump, as a matter of upholding their own oaths to the constitution. No jury is needed, no court decision, his removal is effective immediately after his actions and every current office holder should uphold the law.

______________________________

I put a super-secret pattern into this post, and if you comment before reading everything first, I will know.

a reply to: Mahogany

Your lotion and tissue costs must be outrageous.

The dems ARE leading the charge. They have been since before 2016. The fact that so many republi-crats are doing all they can to help makes it that much more obvious that the hatred and persecution of Trump is political. End of story. It has zero to do with an insurrection or any laws he has broken. The evidence for that is the current president who has publicly admitted he has committed treason against this country and he is still sitting in the White House.

Like I said when the previous paper came out, I don't think Thomas is going to be the ally Trumpers think he is.

a reply to: Mahogany

Base on exactly WHAT evidence? I haven't seen any yet, other than the contrived, loosely exaggerated supposed evidence brought forward by nutcase liberal prosecutors bent on destroying him regardless of the constitutional damage they cause.

a reply to: LittleJake

Somehow these legal "experts" are claiming due process is not necessary and criminal punishment can be meted out without a guilty verdict or even a trial.

Not sure if this is just wishful thinking or paid propaganda but either way it's b.s.

The problem is that "evidence" has all been manipulated, fabricated, twisted and regurgitated into falsehoods, and everyone knows it. The largest Kangaroo court system ever formed and organized in history to prevent our election system from working like it is supposed to just so the DNC can keep on consolidating more power and stay in power. They already got the largest election fraud machine, so now it's Kangaroo courts to get our opponents! Yay!

originally posted by: LittleJake
a reply to: Mahogany

Base on exactly WHAT evidence? I haven't seen any yet, other than the contrived, loosely exaggerated supposed evidence brought forward by nutcase liberal prosecutors bent on destroying him regardless of the constitutional damage they cause.

☝️☝️☝️ This.

Yet there are so many Libs that are cheering this on, many here on ATS, right in this thread.

They don’t care as long as their feelz are soothed.

Has a single charge of sedition, or insurrection been included on any indictment?

Honest question, you would think if there was it would be the lead story on every single news agency.

a reply to: abe froman

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.

There's nothing in there that mentions a conviction. And at least one court in the nation concurs. Couy Griffin was banned from holding office due to his role in J6.

He hasn't been convicted of any insurrection so no, he can still run and be elected POTUS.
He won't be. But he CAN be.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
Has a single charge of sedition, or insurrection been included on any indictment?

...

None directly against Trump, that I'm aware of. However, about 10 or 12 of the Proud Boys/Oath Keepers have been convicted already on sedition, and the argument might be made that Trump gave aid and comfort to them.

Also, the federal charges against Trump include conspiracy and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding. Because that official proceeding was for the purpose of seating the incoming POTUS, one might argue that that amounted to rebellion against the Constitution.

Personally, I don't know if either of these arguments is going to be strong enough to stick. I'm pretty sure these arguments will be made, however, and it will be up the the Supreme Court to decide.

a reply to: Mahogany

Yeah, I actually posted Section 3 of the 14th Amendment stating that this is what would be used to bar Trump from running.

Most anti-Wanting America to be Great people are salivating over this.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Thoughts on this opinion coming from a super-Consevative source with a legal background?

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: DBCowboy

Thoughts on this opinion coming from a super-Consevative source with a legal background?

Please allow me a moment to soil myself in utter shock and horror.



Who cares. Unlike the democrats and the left (redundant) we don't all read from the same script or agree on everything. We aren't the ideologues that the leftists are. Just because YOU think all the same doesn't mean that WE think all the same.

We're actually into diversity, unlike the left.

a reply to: Mahogany

They've gone epileptic in Washington because they know Trump
can win massively. I doubt the cheating flies this time so look for
more lock downs or even an attempt on Trumps life. I can't wrap
my head around how it all could mean so much to these odd ball
whackos. Almost like same hidden agenda is at stake and Trump
keeps blowing it for the repugnant secret society of anti christ
worshippers.

An establishment conservative came up with an agreement to disqualify Donald Trump from running for President? This is big news; he should work with the Cheney family to take back the Republican party.

a reply to: abe froman

i just fixing to ask even if this gets past SCOTUS, did i miss where trump has been found guilty of any charges?

a reply to: Threadbare

There's nothing in there that mentions a conviction. And at least one court in the nation concurs. Couy Griffin was banned from holding office due to his role in J

true it doesn't say anything about conviction, but would you care to point out where it say in the opinion of a bunch of TDS afflicted people that without due process process a person can be barred from running and winning the Presidency also it wasn't SCOTUS that upheld it but New Mexico's on appeal, then it was only for procedural grounds.

Griffin appealed the decision to the New Mexico Supreme Court on Sept. 20; the case was dismissed on Tuesday afternoon on procedural grounds. The Supreme Court ruled that Griffin failed to follow proper appeals procedures.
Jan. 6 Rioter Barred From Holding Office For Life Under Insurrection Clause After His Appeal Is Dismissed

not only that the14th doesn't say anything about disqualification for president it only, what is mentioned in the clause, no matter how much they want to throw the word officer out.

many more legal scholars have said he still can run and win. so much so that lame stream media has begun to say it.

here the very woketard liberal NPR,

Yes, Trump can run for president Fortunately for Trump, there's nothing in the Constitution prohibiting candidates with criminal records from holding office. In fact, an individual only has to be at least 35 years old and be a natural born citizen who has lived in the country for at least 14 years to hold the presidency. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment prevents a person from holding office — the presidency along with other government positions — if they've engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the United States, but even that can be overcome with a two-thirds vote from Congress.
Yes, indicted Trump can still run for president, but winning is a different story

and another woketard liberal lamestream news source,

Can Trump still run for president while indicted or if he is convicted?

Yes, absolutely. “Nothing stops Trump from running while indicted, or even convicted,” the University of California, Los Angeles law professor Richard Hasen told me in an email earlier this year.
The Constitution requires only three things of candidates.
They must be:
A natural born citizen.
At least 35 years old.
A resident of the US for at least 14 years. As a political matter, it’s maybe more difficult for an indicted candidate, who could become a convicted criminal, to win votes. Trials don’t let candidates put their best foot forward. But it is not forbidden for them to run or be elected.
Can Trump still run for president? Your top indictment questions, answered

there are other sources that say the same.

a reply to: Threadbare

Here is the reasonwhy the New Mexico representative cannot be in office though. BECAUSE HE WAS IN THE CROWD OF PROTESTORS. he was on tape.Thats is a STATE doign that not the Feds.Also Trump was NOT on tape in the protestors at the capital building. He even pleaded over social media for them to not do what they were doing. So UNLESS trump is convicted of sedition,they dont have a leg to stand on for the claim to DQ him.
Beating him at the ballot box is the ONLY way to avoid a nasty situation.

a reply to: yuppa

it would have to be insurrection or rebellion which trump is not even charged with.

Eugene Debs was in prison for sedition, and ran for president in 1920.