🧵 For those who have been as interested as I am in the discussion about Congress using Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against Trump, this is a thread of scholarly commentary on the subject. Please feel free to add additional links.
Historian Eric Foner was among the first to suggest using it and he later wrote up his argument in the WaPo here: washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/0…
Two legal scholars, Gerald Magliocca and Bruce Ackerman also argued that using section 3 may be more effective than impeachment: washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/…
In the @nytimes, @brianbeutler and @deepakguptalaw say it section 3 should be used as a compliment to impeachment. nytimes.com/2021/01/12/opi…
Political scientist and professor of law Mark Graber makes the case that section 3 can be invoked by legislation passed after Trump leaves office, which would also "retroactively void any action taken by President Trump after January 6, 2021." theconstitutionalist.org/2021/01/11/sec…
Law professor Noah Feldman argues that a court could determine Trump violated section 3 were he to attempt another presidential bid in 2024: bloomberg.com/opinion/articl…
Several folks have argued against using section 3. Political scientist @kewhittington argues impeachment is the correct remedy and "If Section Three is to be applied, then it should follow a criminal conviction for engaging in an insurrection" reason.com/volokh/2021/01…
Law professor David Hemel argues "A better approach would be for Congress to enact a modern-day analogue to the First Ku Klux Klan Act reestablishing a judicial procedure to disqualify insurrectionists," though that can work alongside impeachment. washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/0…
In an argument against creatively using the Constitution, Historian @DavidHeadPhd argues that "Removing a president from office is novel enough" and "Congress should embrace its experience with impeachment and devote its energy to that path alone." thebulwark.com/the-14th-amend…

• • •

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

Keep Current with Rachel Shelden

Rachel Shelden Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


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

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @rachelshelden

21 Nov 20
Been thinking a lot about how this mirrors a major element of the lead up to and unfolding of the Secession Crisis in 1860-61. It's not a 1-1 comparison but, per Mark Twain, "history doesn't repeat itself but it often rhymes." 1/
By 1860, members of Congress had been delivering what were called "buncombe" speeches in the House & Senate for decades. "Speaking for buncombe," as members called it, meant speeches not for other members (who generally paid them no attention), but for constituents at home. 2/
Buncombe speeches ranged widely in their subject matter but typically they were designed to prove to constituents that the congressman or senator was working for their needs and beliefs. By the 1850s, a significant majority of these buncombe speeches were about slavery. 3/
Read 13 tweets
20 Sep 20
Re: #CourtPacking: many have become so inured to the idea that #SCOTUS has been and should be apolitical that we miss the forest for the trees. While we debate whether SCOTUS is political (it is) members have used the apolitical posture to increase the Court's authority/power. 1/
Consider Chief Justice Roberts' repeated insistence that the justices are umpires in conjunction with the enormous amount of power he amassed as the "swing" vote in the last term. 2/
With some notable exceptions (thx @StrictScrutiny_), Roberts was praised as an "institutionalist" for those votes by court watchers. The idea that the Court was behaving "apolitically" seemed to translate into an increase in public faith in #SCOTUS 3/
Read 9 tweets
19 Jun 20
It's #JUNETEENTH2020 and Black scholars, writers, and activists are providing so much wonderful context for this important holiday. Here is a thread of the articles, threads, and podcasts out today (plus a few terrific older ones worth revisiting) 1/
No better place to start than this deeply personal reflection on celebrating #Juneteenth by @agordonreed: newyorker.com/culture/person…
An incredibly moving essay by @marthasjones_ on how "naming is one essence of freedom" as part of the @nytimes section on #JUNETEENTH2020: nytimes.com/2020/06/18/sty… 3/
Read 22 tweets
17 Apr 20
This is a wonderful thread by my colleague @jacobflee on open access digitized sources to help folks trying to conduct historical research during the pandemic. And adding a few sites I use:
Jacob mentioned the Library of Congress website, which has a vast number of resources but I want to highlight "A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation" which features the Congressional Globe and other records covering the federal government memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/la…
Furman University digitized a good number of editorials from the period just before the Civil War in their "Secession-Era Editorials Project" history.furman.edu/editorials/see…
Read 13 tweets
20 Dec 19
This is a short #2019inReview thread on some of the amazing women whose contributions to our cultural life influenced and excited me this year and that I wanted to share with the twitter world. 1/
I'm part of the #twitterstorians and my job requires me to read a lot of books by men and women. But I this year for my pleasure reading, I chose to only pick books by the amazing women of the literary world. I didn't love every book, but some of them blew me away. 2/
If you haven't picked up a copy of @jesmimi Sing, Unburied, Sing, do not walk, RUN to your nearest bookstore. It's haunting, beautiful, and timely. I read it just before @TayariJones piercing novel, An American Marriage (which I was late to!) and they are both fantastic. 3/
Read 10 tweets
14 May 19
Here's a little thread about #StateRights and #StatesRights that has been puzzling me. #Twitterstorians I am anxious for your insights! 1/
Nearly every book that considers the problem of state sovereignty uses the phrase "States' Rights" to describe this constitutional idea. "States' Rights" seems to be the preferred usage over "State's Rights" and "State Rights" in University Press guides as well 2/
But anyone familiar with political language in the mid-nineteenth century knows that people at that time more commonly used STATE Rights. Folks who favored more centralized power OR who claimed power for the states--in both South and North--talked about State Rights 3/
Read 16 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!