Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 6
Professor Paulsen Says
The Sweep and Force of Section Three
University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 172, 20
University of Chicago - Law School
Michael Stokes Paulsen
University of St. Thomas School of Law
Date Written: August 9, 2023
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First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation.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.
Keywords: Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment, Section Three, Insurrection, Rebellion
No. of Recommendations: 1
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.
----------------------
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.
I don't buy that Due Process can be so haphazardly set aside as this so called legal scholar opines.
Assuming the rest of it a correct interpretation, then it seems that Trump would not be disqualified until and unless a court, followed by all the expected appeals, ultimately decides Trump did "participate" in an insurrection or rebellion. That is not a given despite how much Professor Paulson hates Trump.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Assuming the rest of it a correct interpretation, then it seems that Trump would not be disqualified until and unless a court, followed by all the expected appeals, ultimately decides Trump did "participate" in an insurrection or rebellion. That is not a given despite how much Professor Paulson hates Trump.
They don't let stuff like "Innocent until proven guilty" get in the way.
No. of Recommendations: 2
I don't buy that Due Process can be so haphazardly set aside as this so called legal scholar opines.
That is a leap on your part as he never opines that.
Assuming the rest of it a correct interpretation, then it seems that Trump would not be disqualified until and unless a court, followed by all the expected appeals, ultimately decides Trump did "participate" in an insurrection or rebellion. That is not a given despite how much Professor Paulson hates Trump.
After the court, but not appeals. His appeal process would be to become qualified again. He's distinguished in humanities so he wouldn't like Trump, but hate is a staple of MAGA folk , bread and butter, makes it easier to anger and manipulate them.
No. of Recommendations: 2
They don't let stuff like "Innocent until proven guilty" get in the way.
You're an idiot.
No. of Recommendations: 0
>>I don't buy that Due Process can be so haphazardly set aside as this so called legal scholar opines.<<
That is a leap on your part as he never opines that. - Lapsody
---------------------------
OK then, tell me why the following does NOT amount to setting aside due process....
Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office
.
.
.
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.
