• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Federalist Society Scholars Say Trump is Disqualified From Office

Wandering Monk

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
Under Section 3 of the 14 Amendment, no action by Congress or Courts is required. Trump is ineligible to hold public office.

These professors are not left wing hacks but are members of the Federalist Society.

1691850780611.png

The paper can be read here; at the bottom of the article and is downloadable from SCRIBD.

 
beenherebeforeagain

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
Wandering Monk said:
Under Section 3 of the 14 Amendment, no action by Congress or Courts is required. Trump is ineligible to hold public office.

These professors are not left wing hacks but are members of the Federalist Society.

View attachment 80591
The paper can be read here; at the bottom of the article and is downloadable from SCRIBD.

Click to expand...
Yet according to some, he has not yet been 'proven' to have done so, and until he is, he is still eligible...and that is where the debate remains mired...
 
YmirGF

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
Wandering Monk said:
Under Section 3 of the 14 Amendment, no action by Congress or Courts is required. Trump is ineligible to hold public office.

These professors are not left wing hacks but are members of the Federalist Society.

View attachment 80591
The paper can be read here; at the bottom of the article and is downloadable from SCRIBD.

Click to expand...
*Yawn*

Oh good, yet more opinions.

No doubt Trump will look at this and think, "I'll change my tune because of this honoured opinion."

Mmmm. I'm not seeing it.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
beenherebeforeagain said:
Yet according to some, he has not yet been 'proven' to have done so, and until he is, he is still eligible...and that is where the debate remains mired...
Click to expand...
The 14th Amendment doesn't require that it be proven.
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.
Click to expand...
 
Wandering Monk

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
sun rise said:
<sarcasm> Clearly the "federalist" society is made up of atheist communist ESG-loving Barbie-worshipping sub-human creatures. </sarcasm>

But seriously, this shows that the MAGA party has no interest in intellectual conservatism.
Click to expand...

The Right has been pushing for SCOTUS justices that are 'originalists' since forever. Here we have two Federalist Society scholars suggesting that the original intent of the writers of the Constitution was to disqualify people who did what Trump did from ever holding office again. The response: <yawn>.
 
YmirGF

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
Wandering Monk said:
The Right has been pushing for SCOTUS justices that are 'originalists' since forever. Here we have two Federalist Society scholars suggesting that the original intent of the writers of the Constitution was to disqualify people who did what Trump did from ever holding office again. The response: <yawn>.
Click to expand...
And if they are right, that will be the end of this nonsense. If they are wrong, no one will remember their opinion in two weeks.

Sadly, these days, opinions are cheap.
 
PoetPhilosopher

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
Wandering Monk said:
Under Section 3 of the 14 Amendment, no action by Congress or Courts is required. Trump is ineligible to hold public office.

These professors are not left wing hacks but are members of the Federalist Society.

View attachment 80591
The paper can be read here; at the bottom of the article and is downloadable from SCRIBD.

Click to expand...

At the end of section 3 of the 14 Amendment, it says that it'd take a two-thirds vote of "both Houses". (I assume that means House and Senate)

Edit: I'm actually wrong, here.
 
Last edited:
Wandering Monk

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
Snow White said:
You seem to be withholding a bit of info here - meaning, at the end of section 3 of the 14 Amendment, it says that it'd take a two-thirds vote of "both Houses". (I assume that means House and Senate)
Click to expand...

Congress can LIFT the ban with a 2/3 vote. The ban is not IMPOSED by a 2/3 vote.
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.​
 
PoetPhilosopher

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
Wandering Monk said:
Congress can LIFT the ban with a 2/3 vote. The ban is not IMPOSED by a 2/3 vote.
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.​
Click to expand...

You have it right.

My main concern, though, is that it never really says how to identify or disbar a President from office under that. I worry that this vagueness could be used by one side that, if they ever have their way, would press for an impossible vote as the outcome for the charge, and use the reasoning that "they don't know themselves" about such an Amendment since it never says for sure or lays things out in exact languages, to try to bring forth the vote.

One example of seeing such a thing occur, though it's not exactly the same, was the reasoning that McConnel used during the second impeachment trial. If I recall, it was that since Trump was voted out, he couldn't also be impeached.
 
Wandering Monk

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
Snow White said:
You have it right.

My main concern, though, is that it never really says how to identify or disbar a President from office under that. I worry that this vagueness could be used by one side that, if they ever have their way, would press for an impossible vote as the outcome for the charge, and use the reasoning that "they don't know themselves" about such an Amendment since it never says for sure or lays things out in exact languages, to try to bring forth the vote.

One example of seeing such a thing occur, though it's not exactly the same, was the reasoning that McConnel used during the second impeachment trial. If I recall, it was that since Trump was voted out, he couldn't also be impeached.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on the vagueness. I would guess ultimately that SCOTUS would end up deciding if the case ever got to them.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Wandering Monk said:
The Right has been pushing for SCOTUS justices that are 'originalists' since forever. Here we have two Federalist Society scholars suggesting that the original intent of the writers of the Constitution was to disqualify people who did what Trump did from ever holding office again. The response: <yawn>.
Click to expand...
I suppose the yawn is justified because only an ignorant fool could believe that the Trumpistas are by any definition conservative. Or honest.. That is pretty much old news.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Wandering Monk said:
The Right has been pushing for SCOTUS justices that are 'originalists' since forever....
Click to expand...
That isn't quite so. For example, freedom of the press
being extended to electronic media is an originalist
approach that even liberals favor...sort of. Perhaps
some on the right like originalism when it suits them,
but it's not what the left & right typically believe.

BTW, I favor originalism too. Intent of the framers
beats strict reading of arcane historical language.
And it beats letting SCOTUS & legislators decide
it means whatever they want, ie, amending it by
whim & fiat.
 
Alien826

Alien826

No religious beliefs
Revoltingest said:
BTW, I favor originalism too. Intent of the framers
beats strict reading of arcane historical language.
And it beats letting SCOTUS & legislators decide
it means whatever they want, ie, amending it by
whim & fiat.
Click to expand...

The problem is that it's SCOTUS that decides what the framers actually intended.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top