What are the arguments for why the 14th Amendment doesn't bar Trump from the ballot? Here are the best arguments for those who want to understand the other sideđź§µ
For starters, the text of the amendment never says anything about the president. In fact, it lists a lot of other offices specifically—including electors of the president or vice president—but not the president or vice president themselves.
An earlier draft of this section of the amendment did specifically list the president, but that reference was taken out, which might lead one to conclude that the amendment’s authors did not intend to include presidents for whatever reason.
The phrase “officer of the United States” appears several other times in the Constitution. In Article II, the president “shall Commission all the Officers of the United States”. Since the president doesn’t commission himself, he must not be an officer of the United States.
You also have to find both that Jan 6 was an insurrection and that Trump's speech incited it/wasnt protected. To qualify as incitement, a person’s words must a) encourage the use of violence, b) be intended to result in the use of violence, and c) likely result in violence.
One question stands above the rest: Who gets to decide? Section 3 doesn’t offer definitions of terms (what is an insurrection versus a riot?) or explain what level of evidence is required. (Proof beyond a reasonable doubt? More likely than not? Clear and convincing evidence?)
Section 5, 14A: “Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” Indeed Congress passed the 1870 Enforcement Act and a crime of insurrection that disqualifies someone from holding public office.
But Trump hasn't been charged with--let alone convicted of--that. So why should state courts get to take a shortcut and set their own standards of proof lower than what Congress set?
Now, to be sure, there are responses to all of these arguments. (And many of them are very good!) But that's why anyone who tells you this is "obvious" in either direction aren't giving you the full picture.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
People seem to misunderstand my point. Let me try again. This case would not be in the news but for the true crime obsession in our culture. The people who feel strongly in either direction did not hear what the jury heard. That is my only point.
Indeed I don’t know whether he is guilty nor do I know how I would have voted if I had been on the jury. But I do know a podcast can’t come close to a jury trial. And that this article is a good example how the law works—small issues of due process. That’s a good thing!
As I was saying (cough cough), I don’t think AG Garland had a choice here—the reg is clear in my view—but the buck still stops with him. Now let’s talk Potus, Hunter, etc. 🧵
The Hunter Biden investigation doesn’t need a special counsel bc there’s no conflict. Pursuing Trump was the conflict. *Not* pursuing Hunter would be a conflict but they already have a U.S. Attorney appointed by Trump moving forward.
The decision of whether to indict Donald Trump shouldn’t be the President’s call. DOJ should make that call based on the facts and the law. If they move forward, the President can then decide to issue a pardon.
§ 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.
The Attorney General *will* appoint a Special Counsel when he determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and that investigation would present a conflict of interest for the Department.
Note: A special counsel has the same powers as any other US Attorney. Think of them as a special US attorney over a matter rather than a district. Most importantly, they still report to the Attorney General who has to make the final call regardless.
So appointing a special counsel doesn't help Garland at all. It's still his call at the end of the day and whichever way he decides will anger a bunch of people and undermine faith in the department. He's not going to leave this job as a popular guy. All of which he knows.
Dems should have taken Hillary’s mishandling of classified info more seriously and now remember she was never charged despite evidence she violated §793 and committed obstruction. But GOP should be willing to apply the Clinton standard to their guy too. substack.com/app-link/post?…
But Trump could declassify anything he wanted! A: Clinton had power to classify and declassify State Department information up to the “top secret” level. And Congress actually limits what either can declassify.
But Secret Service guards mar-a-lago! A: They guarded Hillary’s server too. It didn’t matter bc it was connected to the internet. Ditto MAL—doesn’t matter if USSS didn’t control who had access on the property. (This is why they got surveillance footage as part of the warrant.)
A sitting president cannot be charged with a crime under the theory that he is the executor of the laws (he has to be impeached, convicted, and removed from office first). But Trump isn’t president. And there’s no reason 18 USC 793 wouldn’t apply to a former president.
The President is a declassifying authority—but Congress can (and did) put limits on that in the Atomic Energy Act and I haven’t heard any arguments as to why those limits aren’t valid. Ie Trump couldn’t just declassify everything that left the WH as a general order.
But all of this is hypothetical bc Trump hasn’t been charged w a crime. The only q now is whether the DOJ can execute a search warrant to retrieve classified documents (remember: current POTUS is the classifying authority now). It may be a bad idea but the answer is clearly yes.
Known as Duverger’s law, the incentive created by the need to win more votes than any other candidate prompts political factions to coalesce into two competing parties, each vying to capture the electorate’s median voter. But Duverger’s law does not work in party primaries.
The consequence is the plurality-winner rule is a double whammy. First, in the primary, where Duverger’s law has no force, the plurality-winner rule fragments the field, preventing a majority of voters from choosing the candidate who truly is most preferred overall.