Thread by @judgeluttig

As it always is, it was a pleasure to be on with the exceedingly intelligent, articulate, informed @AliVelshi this morning to discuss the application of the Disqualification Clause of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the former president.

I addressed two legitimate questions that have been raised. I explained as to the first -- whether disqualification is anti-democratic -- that actually the Fourteenth Amendment itself declares that disqualification is not anti-democratic at all,

that Section 3 is one of the most democratic provisions in the Constitution precisely because it is a provision of the Constitution. Instead, it is the conduct that gives rise to disqualification under Section 3 that the Constitution deems and declares to be anti-democratic.

The second question I addressed is whether Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment "should" be applied today, a question which, in one form, is an entirely legitimate question to ask and consider, and in its other form, a singularly illegitimate question.

When asked as a question of "Politics" with a capital "P" the question is worthy and deserving of consideration in the national conversation. But when asked as a question of "politics" with a lower case "p," it is not.

However, in neither form this question is asked does it pose a question of constitutional law. And as to both forms of this question, the Constitution is indifferent to the answer.

Section 3 is in the Constitution of the United States and it applies to the former president, whether one believes it should apply or should not apply.

Arguments that the Fourteenth Amendment should not be applied to the former president are not much different in principle, if any, than the former president's claim last December that the Constitution should be "terminated" and he installed into the Office of the Presidency.

Unsurprisingly, the Constitution does not permit of the termination or suspension of any of its provisions as and when politically convenient. Indeed it is a Constitution in no small part because it does not permit of such selective political application of any of its provisions.

msnbc.com/ali-velshi/wat…