If only conservatives listened to scholars. Then they might consider a) the intent of the constitution and b) the practical implications of nominating someone so unfit. Alas.

It's absolutely insane that it's even up for fucking debate.

“No shit” - the rest of the sane world.

Never forget, Hitler was part of a literal failed coup and imprisoned, and STILL was able to run for political offices. Insane.

Sure, but we shouldn't need a legal argument.

We only need a reasonable electorate.

So should all of these. We can't just punish Trump but let the rest go.

https://themessenger.com/grid/these-16-republican-congressmembers-helped-trump-try-to-overturn-the-2020-election

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.

Trump doesn’t follow the constitution, nor is he held to its standards by those who have the authority to force him to. This is a non-starter.

At this point it should be illegal for him to even run.

Legal scholars VS 49% of Americans, most of whom can't read a coloring book. One guess who is going to vote for the orange turd anyway.

I'm thinking it increasingly likely that those with the power to stop him will do nothing. As evidenced by the traitors still being in Congress.

In practice, it goes eventually to the Supreme Court which, like the Republican Party, has been Trumpified and therefore will see no problem, case closed.

I think the trick is going to be, based on the other guy who got disqualified for 1/6, is that someone actually has to challenge the nomination. It's not something that happens automatically.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judge-removes-local-official-engaging-jan-insurrection/story?id=89463597

"The decision came in a lawsuit brought by a group of New Mexico residents represented by the government accountability group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and other lawyers."

It's a good thing that it is very difficult to stop somebody from running for office.

The act of running for office, or more accurately the act of the people to chose whom represents them, should not be easy to take away.

In banana republics the new guy or the guy with the most power at the moment regularly uses tactics to stop their opponents in the courts. Sometimes the charges are legitimate, but sometimes they are totally fabricated.

Take for example the case of Pita, 42 years old, the leader of the move forward party in Thailand. His party swept the recent election and by many accounts average Thai people see his ideas as the most welcome path forward. Yet the old guys and their friends, who were part of the coup 6-7 years ago, are still in power. They have been able to completely shut Pita's party down in the courts, and despite the people having made a choice by voting, they, will not get the government they wanted.

If there was another political party in the USA that was more successful than Trump's at breaking the laws, and the American courts were to set a precedent that some opponents can't run for office given legal charges, I'm afraid the risk of politicians looking to defeat their opponents in court would become much more common than trying to defeat them in the polls.

Let him destroy the GOP before you bar him. Thats thing has fot to go

Increasingly? The article should have a graph.

His people will still vote for him, even if he's legally barred from the job.

This is the best summary I could come up with:

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.

The latest salvo came Saturday in The Atlantic magazine, from liberal law professor Laurence Tribe and J. Michael Luttig, the former federal appellate judge and a prominent conservative who’s become a strong critic of Trump’s actions after the election.

They and others base their arguments on a reading of part of the 14th Amendment, a post-Civil War provision that excludes from future office anyone who, previously, as a sworn-in public official, “engaged in insurrection or rebellion … or [had] given aid or comfort to the enemies” of the government.

The law professors argued current and former officeholders who took part in supporting or planning the efforts to overturn the election for Trump should also be “stringently scrutinized” under the Constitution should they seek bids for future public office.

The pair also looked at the historical intentions of this section of the 14th Amendment, which barred Confederates after the Civil War from holding office again, because if they were to be allowed, the US would never be able to engage in “effective ‘reconstruction’ of the political order” and newly freed formerly enslaved people wouldn’t be properly protected.

Previously, advocacy groups contested the ability of Republican members of Congress Marjorie Taylor Green and Madison Cawthorn to be ballot candidates in 2022 because of the 14th Amendment and their vocal support of the Capitol rioters.

The original article contains 882 words, the summary contains 255 words. Saved 71%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!