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

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

Is it though? Im not from the US so dont really have a dog in the fight, but hear me out.
On what basis should he not be allowed? Because he's been indicted? Or because he was impeached? Both? Whatever the reason he would be barred would set a precedent.
Are there proper checks in place to ensure that the precedent set in place cant be met by simply stacking certain departments by a sitting president? The last thing you want is a pathway for a sitting president to effectively disqualify their opponent.
Clearly Trump is a monumental dickhead, but the problem is the people who vote for him more than anything
- On what basis should he not be allowed?
  Well, this is what the US constitution says:
  Amendment XIV, Section 3.
  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.
  The question is whether those words apply to his actions, and who exactly has the responsibility to interpret them.
- The US constitution bans anyone who leads an insurrection against the government from holding public office.
- A lot of us in the U.S. feel very strongly about what happened on January 6th, 2021, and the role he played in that.
- Well both, of course.
  What I think is insane is that the question of whether an impeached president can run again hadn't been settled years ago. It's just obvious. It shouldn't be precedent setting. it's something that should have been settled a long time ago.
- On what basis? Because he committed a coup isn't good enough?
- Just read the fucking article. The legal reasoning is pretty clearly explained. You're basically asking people to read it for you.

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

Where is the sane world at the moment?
- No democracy is perfect, but with out a doubt most of the world's population living in democratic countries think what is happening in America with Trump is insane.
- They moved on from experimental democracy with FPTP to better forms of representation that isn't so easily manipulated by the rich.

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.

We shouldn't need a legal argument, but we do.
And we certainly do not have a reasonable electorate.
We have a reasonable electorate, inasmuch as Trump has no chance of ever winning the popular vote and never did. What we don’t have is a rational electoral system where all votes are equal.
- We have a reasonable electorate
  Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. Trump got something like 74,000,000 votes.

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.

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.

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.

A little less than half the population doesn't vote. So, it is more like 26% of Americans.
- And since we have had 4 years of COVID festering in the south, I would imagine in 2024 he'll get maybe 20%
- Exactly... Saying.that it's 49‰ vastly overestimates their position.
  Comments like that help them solidify their beliefs that they could even have a majority... "Silent majority" my ass.... They need to shut their loud fuckin mouths for a change actually

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.

They had two chances and didn't do it. Those same scholars still voted for the same candidates in the primary.

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.

Even that would be an improvement on the up-in-the-air situation we're in right now. They would have to provide guidelines for what exactly constitutes insurrection in order to make a ruling.
- Would they? No really I am asking. Couldn't they just say this doesn't count and not define what would.
- No it wouldn't. The Supreme Court is corrupted and therefore illegitimate, so all they'll do is make matters worse. The abortion bans aren't legitimate and neither would them doing something like that.
  All that really fundamentally matters for the purposes of this discussion is stopping Trump from being elected again.
  Systems exist to serve us and we can dispose of them and set up new ones as we please and as the need arises. This is one of those times. It has been for the entire 21st century.

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.

I agree with this, but can we stop referring to every rigged democratic system and autocratic government as a Banana Republic?
It just makes people posting look less knowledgeable about government and politics because it's meaning is tied to something very specific that doesn't apply to your overall well thought out comment.
Thailand is not an example of a Banana Republic and neither is the US, nor could it ever be, as it's not a country tied to very limited export of natural resources.
- Well, I mean. There was that one time we overthrew the incumbent monarchy of Hawaii and annexed it so we could grow sugar cane on it.
- Is there another, more relevant term to describe governments that use sham strategies to subvert the people to obtain their goals? If so I'll changw my vocabulary. I just didn't know of another better term at the moment of writing my post.
  Perhaps junta governments?
Okay but repeatedly and blatantly trying to subvert democracy should mean that you don't get to participate in democracy anymore for the same reason that you should be banned from a chess tournament if you kick the board over and pull out a gun the first time someone puts you into check.
- What if that is legitimately what the people "want" and see voting that way to cast their belief in such a major change?
  It's a government of the people, by the people, for the people. The people get to make the rules at the chess tournament. The courts... work for the people.
  I know that would be a particularly bad change, but if the majority of people truly want a pathway for it, what other way is available?
It doesn't matter. The corrupt Thai government was going to do that whether it was legal or not just as fascists here will do what they want whether legal or not, so they have to be forcibly stopped at the gate. That's why that constitutional provision is even there.
- Yes, I agree. Unfortunately the old guys are pro at playing that game and Pita just wasn't there yet.
  I think the old guys do care if their domestic authority appears plausible on the international scene. Otherwise they run into problems .
  But the Thai people have definitely spoken. How serious they feel about it will come out over time, I suppose.
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.
You don't vote for president. You vote for electors. It isn't "the people".

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

That mission is pretty well accomplished. DeSatan is being pummeled by a Mouse, and Trump will run as an independent and split the vote if he doesn't get the GOP nomination
- Trump may be in the lead now, but he cannot campaign effectively with so many legal problems looming. He's already planning on skipping the first debate this month and instead doing an interview with Tucker Carlson. Although I am unsure how that will be done. Fox News told Tucker to stop doing his Twitter show because he's violating contract by doing such. Also, why would Trump still want to appear on any Tucker Carlson appearance now? While Tucker flirts with him in public, his texts to colleagues said he hated him and was sick of talking to or about him in the Dominion lawsuit evidence. I hope as part of sentencing for his indictments, the judge or jury really throws the book at Trump and tells him he must forfeit the presidential race. I'm not even sure if that's a punishment they can issue, but I hope they can.
- Looks like he'll win the nomination pretty handily as of now.
- I'm not sure we're that lucky.

Increasingly? The article should have a graph.

It used to be 5 legalons, now it's at 7.6!

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!

You don't say, you geniuses?!

As much as I hate Trump - wouldn't he need to be convicted for trying to overturn the election before he loses any civil rights over that?

I think the point they are making is that the Constitution doesn't specify that a conviction is necessary.
It doesn't say it isn't necessary either.
- Maybe it doesn't have to be a criminal conviction - but there must be some process to review the evidence, and establish that the attempt happened.
I think you could do it with a civil suit filed in the appropriate jurisdiction. But IANAL, so that's just a guess. It seems like that's what they did with the guy in New Mexico.
They argue that it doesn't remove anyone's rights, it's a constitutionally mandated eligibility requirement, no different from needing to be over 35 or US born

He shouldn’t be allowed to run, but it’s better if he does. An unchallenged DeSantis is way more likely to win against Biden than this guy.

Now I'm not a fancy, big-city lawyer...but I believe Trump is an ass, a fool and a criminal.

Fools have served a vital societal function for centuries. The job requires incisive thinking and wit; he's not qualified. Plz don't be besmirchin'

Ok, I get the sentiment but let's bear in mind that whatever rules apply to Trump will be applied to others. It should be very hard to bar someone from running. Trump doesn't have the support to win the general. It's not happening. He lost the Republican party multiple elections now, and they know it (well, enough of them know it). Let's not forget that Eugene Debs ran for office in 1920 from prison. He was put there under the Sedition Act for speaking out against WW1 and the draft, if I recall correctly. This type of thing is a sword that cuts both ways.

My guy, if his actions don't meet the threshold, no one's will.

I don't think the people that voted for a demented husk should be speaking on a matter as hot as this. We are in the worst state we've been in in decades and everyone chooses to ignore that fact and continue to target what I see as a scapegoat. To pull the attention off the matters currently being conducted right in front of us. But no one bats an eye. It's always "orange man bad" when it's most convenient for the people in charge of everything, especially with the primarys coming up. Extremely convenient to be doing all of this right before.