Tweet

Deepak Gupta

6 Jan, 4 tweets, 2 min read

There's understandably been a lot of talk today about the 25th Amendment and the Impeachment Clause. We should also focus on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies those who engage in insurrection against the Constitution of the United States from holding office.

The Impeachment Clause also authorizes Congress to order "disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States." And there should be a high bar to concluding that an official has engaged in "insurrection." But it seems worth discussion.

This law review article provides a helpful framework for understanding Section 3: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…

And this person--an already-seated WV state legislator who took part in today's failed insurrection at the Capitol--seems like a potential test case: buzzfeednews.com/article/briann…

To be clear, I was just trying to raise Section 3 of the 14th Amendment as an issue for potential discussion--not coming to any conclusions. I suggest that people start by reading the linked article before jumping to any conclusions.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

More from @deepakguptalaw

Deepak Gupta

@deepakguptalaw

26 Nov 20

Anyone who wants to understand the newly composed SCOTUS needs to take a hard and careful look at the full set of opinions released at midnight last night. They are very revealing—probably more so than they would be if the Justices had the benefit of more time for deliberation.

1) The restrictions were lifted. Why does the Court feel a need to issue what the Chief characteristically calls "[a]n order telling the Governor not to do what he’s not doing"?
2) Justice Thomas assigns to Justice Barrett. She write but doesn't sign her first opinion. Why?

3) Justice Gorsuch writes solo to offer a lengthy attack on the Chief's short solo opinion in a previous case. Why?
4) Justice Gorsuch equates a quick trip to the store (masked, distanced) with a morning spent singing alongside others indoors. Why?
5) Many, many more questions.

Read 8 tweets

Deepak Gupta

@deepakguptalaw

7 Oct 20

A quick note on the scary seconds just before my SCOTUS argument this morning. We had tested all the technology carefully, working with the Court’s excellent, helpful staff. But just seconds before I was about to start talking, the line went completely dead. Silence!

@smmarotta

This happened while @smmarotta was wrapping up, which was my cue that the Chief Justice was about to call my name to immediately start. At first, we thought that Sean’s line cut out. A few seconds later, we realized that the high-tech phone system we were borrowing had shut off!

(We had switched from our own conference room to a friend’s law firm because the Court detected some bandwidth issues on our VOIP lines and the other firm’s connection was ideal. The Court staff thought it was the best audio quality of any advocate this term.)

Read 8 tweets

Deepak Gupta

@deepakguptalaw

26 Sep 19

Office of Legal Counsel's memo argued that the whistleblower complaint didn't have to be released to Congress b/c it didn't allege abuse of intelligence processes. That's demonstrably false: It alleges a pattern of WH using NSC computer systems to hide politically damaging facts.

Don't believe me? See for yourself. Here's the Office of Legal memo. I've excerpted its bottom-line legal conclusion.: assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6429…

And here's one of several paragraphs in the whistleblower complaint concerning abuse of national security computer systems--"administration, or operation of an intelligence activity under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence"--to hide the President's conduct.

Read 7 tweets

Deepak Gupta

@deepakguptalaw

13 Sep 19

BREAKING: We just won our appeal in our Emoluments Clause case against Donald Trump, on behalf of Trump's restaurant and hotel competitors. The Second Circuit panel unanimously reverses the district court's dismissal, across the board. Opinion coming shortly.