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 18 • 10 tweets • 2 min read Twitter logo

The Colorado State District Court, Judge Sarah B. Wallace, held tonight that the former president “engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect [his] speech." The court also held that he

"acted with the specific intent to disrupt the Electoral College certification of President Biden’s electoral victory through unlawful means." The court thus found as both fact and law the preconditions to the former president's disqualification under Section 3.

But then, accepting wholesale the former president’s tortured constitutional arguments, the court held that the Presidency of the United States is not an “office under the United States” and that the former president

was not an "officer of the United States" and did not take an oath to “support the Constitution of the United States” in 2016 when he took the presidential oath in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8, to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

It is unfathomable as a matter of constitutional interpretation that the Presidency of the United States is not an “office under the United States.” It is even more constitutionally unfathomable, if that's possible,

that the former president did not take an oath “to support the Constitution of the United States” within the meaning of Section 3 when he took took the presidential oath “to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

The Constitution is not a suicide pact with America's democracy. Indeed, it is the very contrary in this instance. It is plain that the entire purpose of Section 3, confirmed by its literal text,

is to disqualify any person who, having taken an oath to support the Constitution, engages in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution. The former president did exactly that when he attempted to overturn the 2020 election and remain in office

in rebellious violation of the Constitution's Executive Vesting Clause, which prescribes the four-year term of the presidency.

https://x.com/tribelaw/status/1725670144142151746?s=46&t=WNs0Mo784f6QpGLAQkMxlQ

Professor Tribe and I will join @AliVelshi to discuss the Colorado court's opinion tomorrow morning on @VelshiMSNBC.

https://x.com/tribelaw/status/1725670144142151746?s=46&t=WNs0Mo784f6QpGLAQkMxlQ

• • •

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

Nov 17

I have been asked time after time over the past year and a half, “Is there any hope for America’s Democracy and, if there is, where is it to be found?"

I’ve always answered, “Yes, there is always hope, even in the midst of seeming hopelessness, and we can find that hope in the American People. The American People will never allow their democracy to fail."

I had this thought again this morning when I saw that Thursday’s tweet of a quotation from one of our Founding Fathers to another almost 230 years ago has been viewed over 2.3 million times in the past thirty-six hours. I could not have imagined.

Read 7 tweets

@judgeluttig

Nov 15

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,

Read 9 tweets

@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

@judgeluttig

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

@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

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!