A new study analyzes whether Donald Trump has the right to run for president for the second time. Here’s the whole story.
Trump Could Be Disqualified From Holding the Presidency Under a Constitutional Provision
Two conservative law professors, William Baude from the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen from the University of St. Thomas, have undertaken a comprehensive study.
The study found that Trump could be disqualified from holding the presidency under a constitutional provision.
This provision disqualifies individuals who have engaged in an insurrection from occupying government positions.
Professor Baude and Paulsen are active members of the conservative legal group the Federalist Society. They are proponents of originalism, a method of interpreting the Constitution’s original meaning.
… Amounting to Insurrection, Rendering Him Ineligible for the Presidency
They conducted their research for over a year, and their findings will be published in an upcoming issue of The University of Pennsylvania Law Review.
In their study, Baude and Paulsen explore whether Trump’s actions leading up to and during the events of January 6th, 2021, amount to insurrection, rendering him ineligible for the presidency.
The professors’ analysis concludes that unless two-thirds of Congress grants him amnesty for his conduct that day, Trump cannot run for president, become president, or hold any government office.
The article’s depth and scope could fuel lawsuits by other candidates and voters contending that Trump’s actions make him constitutionally ineligible for public office.
Prohibits Individuals Who Have Engaged in Insurrection or Rebellion From Holding Office
Although the article won’t alter the fact that Trump remains a prominent political figure and the Republican front-runner, it could stimulate legal challenges based on his eligibility.
According to Professor Paulsen, these lawsuits might raise a crucial constitutional issue that could reach the Supreme Court.
The professors’ findings are rooted in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits individuals who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion from holding office if they previously took an oath to support the Constitution.
Congress can only lift this prohibition through a two-thirds majority vote in each chamber.
Evidence Suggesting Trump’s Involvement in the Insurrection
Trump has faced legal challenges, including two federal indictments related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election and handling classified documents. However, the current analysis centers on his eligibility to hold office.
The article cites substantial evidence suggesting Trump’s involvement in the insurrection, including his efforts to subvert the election, pressure the vice president to disregard the Constitution, and his role in inciting the events of January 6th.
The law professors’ work has garnered support and critique.
Steven G. Calabresi, a Federalist Society founder, praised the article, while James Bopp Jr., who has represented House members in challenges under the same constitutional provision, criticized its breadth and historical accuracy.
It Introduces an Intriguing Legal Perspective
While based on historical evidence, the professors’ analysis contends that Trump’s actions align with the definition of insurrection and rebellion outlined in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
The language of this provision is automatic and comparable to other qualifications for holding office outlined in the Constitution, such as the age requirement for the presidency.
While the professors’ article won’t alter Trump’s present circumstances, it introduces an intriguing legal perspective.
Whether this analysis will contribute to any legal actions challenging his future eligibility for office remains to be seen.
Featured Image Credit: Shutterstock / Joseph Sohm. The people shown in the images are for illustrative purposes only, not the actual people featured in the story.
Source: The New York Times