Two conservative lawyers make a strong 14th Amendment argument. But the politics of their theory are very, very dicey.

FTA:

Two conservative legal scholars, members of the Federalist Society in good standing, have just published an audacious argument: that Donald Trump is constitutionally prohibited from running for president, and that state election officials have not only the authority but the legal obligation to prevent his name from appearing on the ballot.

The legal paper, authored by University of Chicago professor William Baude and University of St. Thomas professor Michael Stokes Paulsen, centers on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — a provision that limits people from returning to public office if they have since “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or “given aid or comfort” to those who have. Baude and Paulsen argue that this clearly covers Trump’s behavior between November 2020 and January 2021.

“The most politically explosive application of Section Three to the events of January 6, is at the same time the most straightforward,” Baude and Paulsen write. “Former President Donald J. Trump is constitutionally disqualified from again being President (or holding any other covered office) because of his role in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 election and the events leading to the January 6 attack.”

  • stephen01kingEnglish
    21·
    11 months ago

    I’m asking for one example of someone living their whole life with zero consequence, like you claimed.

    The original argument was not that there are no example of falling upwards, but that the consequence always come to bite them in the ass, even if it takes a while. You argued there are in fact people who lived their whole lives facing zero consequence for their actions, so that means it should be easy for you to show me one such example.