@judgeluttig Profile picture
Nov 15 9 tweets 2 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
Prophetic words from Alexander Hamilton to George Washington in 1792 — as apt and timely today as they were over 230 years ago.
“A people so enlightened and so diversified as the people of this Country can surely never be brought to [monarchy], but from convulsions and disorders,
in consequence of the acts of popular demagogues. The truth unquestionably is, that the only path to a subversion of the republican system of the Country is, by flattering the prejudices of the people, and exciting their jealousies and apprehensions,
to throw affairs into confusion, and bring on civil commotion. Tired at length of anarchy, or want of government, they may take shelter in the arms of monarchy for repose and security.
Those then, who resist a confirmation of public order, are the true Artificers of monarchy—not that this is the intention of the generality of them. Yet it would not be difficult to lay the finger upon some of their party who may justly be suspected.
When a man unprincipled in private life desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents, having the advantage of military habits—despotic in his ordinary demeanour—known to have scoffed in private at the principles of liberty—
when such a man is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity—to join in the cry of danger to liberty—to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government & bringing it under suspicion—to flatter and fall in with all the nonsense of the zealots of the day—
It may justly be suspected that his object is to throw things into confusion that he may “ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.””

• • •

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

Keep Current with @judgeluttig

@judgeluttig 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!

PDF

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 @judgeluttig

Nov 9
The time has come for a new legal movement committed to American Democracy, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law, without regard to partisan politics and partisan political party affiliation, and
last night's launch of the new Society for the Rule of Law was inspiring! America's Democracy and the Rule of Law are the causes of our times -- and they are righteous causes deserving of our defense, support, and preservation.
Thank you to the hundreds of lawyers and non-lawyers who registered and joined us last night. You inspired us! Thank you, eminent Yale Law Professor Akhil Amar for starring on the panel about the Supreme Court and the Federal Judiciary.
Read 8 tweets
Nov 4
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").
Read 11 tweets
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
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
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
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

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

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!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(