Notre Dame Law school is an elite Catholic law school, but you are right; it’s not known as Ivy League.
Also something not in anyone control. I get the sentiment but the idea of preventing actions that may lead to horrible precedent by a court should squarely rest with the court, not the individuals that brought the lawsuit. Too often the blame is wrongfully placed at the individuals (and their supporters) for moving forward with the lawsuits.
It's interesting to read the WSJ's predictable take on this, especially since they cite Trump's second impeachment acquittal as justification for decrying Colorado's decision. What do they make of the fact that J. Michael Luttig, the esteemed conservative author of the "you can't impeach an out-of-office president" defense that many Republican senators relied upon, now convincingly argues that the 14th Amendment clearly bars Trump from further office? Their entire argument seems to be that a lot of Republican voters do not care whether or not Trump broke any laws. Therefore using using the law to hold him accountable for his criminality will only further inflame them so it shouldn't be done. It's some bizarre Robin Hood defense that suggests popular criminals shouldn't be prosecuted on the basis of their popularity. There's a crucial point here, though: Trump's not being tried criminally in this regard. The Constitution lays out rules for presidential eligibility. A 34-year-old not being allowed to serve as president is not being deprived of their rights; they don't meet the guidelines. Similarly, insurrectionists like ex-Confederates and Trump do not have a right to occupy office according to the 14th Amendment. Congress can forgive them via a supermajority if it sees fit. Tellingly, none of the dissenting justices in Colorado disagreed that Trump had engaged in insurrection. And LOL at the semantics of saying the president isn't an "officer" when Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution says "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States". Does the 14th Amendment's supposed omission of that word override the presidential oath laid out earlier in the Constitution? Are we really supposed to believe that the person who holds office isn't an officer?
@Astrodome if Hailey wins she beats biden even in a good economy. Issue is she won't win. Trump is toast after he gets convicted next summer and the economy gets hot. Biden will win by ease. Hailey beats biden
Almost all of the defenses of Trump are political. Bending or ignoring the law because it is politically expedient is also on the road to being a banana republic.
Not being able to run for office isn’t a criminal Penalty. Also to again remind everyone that Trump himself tried to disqualify Obama for office by claiming he wasn’t a natural born citizen.
Wait a minute, are you trying to say that Biden should get the economy and border crisis under control in order to defeat Trump? He was elected to lead this nation and should have been doing that since day 1 because he owes it to this country. Because tax payers are funding his lifestyle and Hunter's crack and prostitute addiction.... You don't all of a sudden do what you were suppose to have been doing because you don't want Trump to win, you do that because that's your responsibility that's your job. You demonrats are ridiculous, now ya'll want Biden to do what Trump was doing in 2016 and wants to do in 2024.... Shame on you for even proposing these corrupt politicians do something good for this country just so they can stay in power, how hard do you enjoy getting bent that you are willing to let them *ck you for a couple of nice words and a few good actions all for the sake of political gain.
Donald Trump was charging secret service tens of thousands of dollars to use a guest restroom cuz they wouldn't allow them in their house. Trump spent tens of billions in security golfing and he forced secret service to stay at expensive rooms at his property. You're a moron You can keep yelling biden is corrupt to help you sleep but biden isn't the scumbag like your cult leader taking open bribes from the saudis. You MAGAts are so funny. Nothing you say about biden is true while you ass lick Trump who does what you say. This is who your cult leader is selling out too @Trader_Jorge @Salvy @Commodore do the MAGAts realize that your cult leader is literally selling out to the saudis with no shame?
trump made america look like a banana republic when he incited an insurrection against his own government.
This is why the WSJ EB is engaging in partisan politics. The WSJ EB is undoubtedly familiar with Luttig. They are also well aware of conservative legal scholars William Baude and Michael Paulsen, who authored a paper on Section 3, arguing that Trump is disqualified under it. Despite this, the WSJ EB portrayed it as if it were a liberal plot. The abstract is provided below. Take a look at the paper, and you'll discover that their argument is rooted in the widely embraced conservative principle of originalism. I don't fault conservative posters here for not being aware of this (Twitter, Fox News, and all), but the WSJ EB? They are simply playing partisan politics. The Sweep and Force of Section Three by William Baude, Michael Stokes Paulsen :: SSRN 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. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.
