Tweet

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
Click again on or Share Via icon
Click on Copy Link to Tweet
Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
More info at Twitter Help

@judgeluttig

Nov 4 • 11 tweets • 2 min read Twitter logo

I had the opportunity again yesterday on @DeadlineWH with @NicolleDWallace to make the single most important point that needs to be made about the Disqualification Clause in Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment:

A person is disqualified from "Office under the United States" for engaging in an insurrection or rebellion against "the Constitution of the United States,” NOT for engaging in an insurrection or rebellion against "the United States” or "the authority of the United States

(though it's hard to imagine that an instance of the latter would not also constitute an insurrection or rebellion against the "Constitution of the United States").

While it's not clear they are even aware of this critical distinction, the former president's lawyers are instead arguing before the courts in Colorado and Minnesota that he did not incite or engage in a violent insurrection or rebellion against the United States.

It is exponentially easier for them to establish that the former president did not engage in an insurrection or rebellion against the United States than it would be to establish that he did not engage in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States.

Unfortunately, the parties and lawyers challenging the former president’s qualification do not appear to appreciate the critical distinction either, because they are trying to establish that the former president did incite a violent insurrection on the Capitol on January 6.

While the violent attack on the Capitol is certainly relevant to the question presented under Section 3, it is only tangentially so. The compelling case for those challenging the former president’s qualification for the presidency

is that the former president engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States. This case does not depend on a violent attack on the Capitol. As I explained previously and again yesterday, the former president's

effort, plan, and attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election in order to remain in power beyond the constitutionally prescribed four-year term in the Constitution’s Executive Vesting Clause is the quintessential “rebellion against the Constitution of the United States.”

In fact, it could hardly be any clearer that this violation of the Constitution is exactly what the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment considered to be an “insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States."

msnbc.com/deadline-white…

• • •

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 @judgeluttig

@judgeluttig

Oct 31

With pristine clarity, Professor Laurence H. Tribe and Dennis Aftergut explain in this @USATODAY essay the compelling case for disqualification of the former president from future "office . . . under the United States" under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment:

Simply, he rebelled "against the Constitution of the United States" when, in violation of the Constitution's Executive Vesting Clause, he tried to overturn the 2020 presidential election and remain in power, notwithstanding that he had lost that election

and the American People had voted instead to confer the Executive power upon his successor, now-President Joseph Biden.

Read 8 tweets

@judgeluttig

Oct 21

Former Republican Administration officials from five Republican Administrations argue in this amicus brief filed yesterday in United States v. Donald Trump that the former president is not entitled to absolute immunity from prosecution for his alleged crimes

against the United States because, in attempting to overturn the presidential election that he knew he had lost, he violated the Executive Vesting Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution.

To our knowledge, this is the first brief ever to make this constitutional argument against absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for a president.

Read 5 tweets

@judgeluttig

Oct 14

In concluding from these “framing/ratification comments” that the text of Section 3 is ambiguous, Professors @kurtlash1 and Calabresi are turning constitutional interpretation upside down. Framing or ratification comments — whether ambiguous, as here, or clear —

cannot “render” constitutional text ambiguous. By Section 3, a person is disqualified from holding an “office . . . under the United States” if he engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States, having taken an oath to support the same.

These framing/ratification comments do not even arguably render this clear constitutional text ambiguous. Indeed, in making the argument they do from these ambiguous comments, Professors Lash and Calabresi implicitly acknowledge the constitutional text itself IS unambiguous.

Read 6 tweets

@judgeluttig

Oct 2

I apology for the length of this rejoinder. A "Letter to the Editor" seemed futile for the needs and purposes of this tweet. Thank goodness for Twitter!

This editorial today by @washingtonpost is perhaps the most journalistically incompetent and irresponsible editorial on the Constitution of the United States and a question of constitutional law by a major national newspaper that I ever remember reading.

The editorial inauspiciously begins by "misquoting" the Disqualification Clause of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment itself, next dismissively pronouncing the argument for disqualification made by the nation's foremost constitutional scholars as little more than "intriguing,"

Read 23 tweets

@judgeluttig

Oct 2

This excellent piece in the @latimes by @pennlaw professor @KermitRoosevelt on Section 3 adds the compelling historical explanation/justification for the former president's disqualification from the presidency that has been missing from the national conversation to date:

"[The Civil War] was also different in its goal and rationale. The secessionists of the 19th century wanted to break away from the United States and start their own country. Confederate leader Jefferson Davis was their president, they declared, not Abraham Lincoln.

The Jan. 6 insurrectionists, by contrast, wanted to retain Trump as president of the United States. They weren’t trying to separate from the country; they were trying to take it over.

Read 7 tweets

@judgeluttig

Sep 18

There is simply no basis in constitutional interpretation, reason, or logic for concluding from the constitutional fact that the president nominates and appoints “Officers of the United States” under Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, that the president is not

“an officer of the United States” for purposes of the Disqualification Clause of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such is constitutional non sequitur. Under the Constitution, the president holds the “Office of the President of the United States.”

He is unquestionably an “officer of the United States,” even if he is not an “Officer of the United States” for purposes of the Appointments Clause. The fact that the president is elected, not appointed, and therefore is not an “Officer of the United States”

Read 12 tweets

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

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

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

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

@judgeluttig

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @judgeluttig

@judgeluttig

@judgeluttig

@judgeluttig

@judgeluttig

@judgeluttig

@judgeluttig

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!