From the article: ...a conviction would be beside the point. The disqualification clause operates independently of any such criminal proceedings and, indeed, also independently of impeachment proceedings and of congressional legislation. The clause was designed to operate directly and immediately upon those who betray their oaths to the Constitution, whether by taking up arms to overturn our government or by waging war on our government by attempting to overturn a presidential election through a bloodless coup.
In a "rule of law" country, you kind of need something more than "he's guilty and we all know it". Otherwise, a bunch of us can say "labrador is guilty, and we all know it, so he can't run for office", and you have no recourse, whether or not you're guilty.
And who would say that he's not allowed to run? Who would make the official pronouncement? The Federal Election Commission? Do you think this can happen without it turning into a Supreme Court case? Do you think the Supreme Court is just going to say, "yes, you're right, he can't run"? Give them as much reason as you can to agree with you.
More, even if he is guilty, it's important that you prove it to his supporters. Sure, some won't listen, no matter what proof you give. Some will, though, and it's important that you give them reason to get off the Trump train. If you don't, you'll just radicalize them when you say that he can't run again.
Luttig suggests it will be up to the Secreteries of State in the various states to determine eligibility (just as for age and other qualifications), and then whatever decision they make it will be challenged, so ultimately it will probably have to be proven in court, albeit (if what the courts decide is other than "convict him first") to a "preponderance of evidence" standard rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt."
I'm personally undecided on what I think about it all.
The argument here is that the disqualification clause of the 14th Amendment, while the amendment as a whole permits enforcement legislation, is operational and binding independent of any enforcement legislation (such as the disqualification penalty attached to the federal crime of insurrection), and thus conviction is not necessary.
Political opponents could avoid persecution (prosecution?) by not breaking the law or violating their oath. But once the precedent has been sent, given the way US politics has turned into trench warfare, future politicians will decide that this is a really handy way to remove someone they can't remove at the ballot box.
> "If Trump is jailed, every US President will be from this point onwards."
Maybe America should consider doing that. South Korea has jailed four ex-presidents so far, and will likely continue to do so in the future. Somehow the country is fine. If anything, I think it helps establish the notion that nobody is above the law.
(Not saying everything is great in South Korean politics, of course. Ask any South Korean, and they'll argue to death that half of South Korea is selling out the country. The only difference is which half.)
If every president is jailed from this point onward, then the only ones who will run are those who think they can stay in power forever - maybe even those who have a plan to stay in power forever. That seems unlikely to work out well...
This sounds like another way of saying that all presidents are above the law and should never be prosecuted, which seems... problematic. If Trump's actions are not worthy of prosecution then what could a president possibly do to get arrested?
> Also, if the Constitution is interpreted in a way which allows persecution of political opponents, then the Constitution in more trouble than Trump is.
If it allowed prosecution of people for being political opponents, sure, but that’s not the issue. (And its interesting that almost everyone making this case has, both before and even after making it, argued for the prosecution of their political opponents.)
OTOH, allowing political opposition to be a “get out of insurrection free” card, is an obvious existential risk.
> Nick Land puts it well: “If Trump is jailed, every US President will be from this point onwards.”
Even if I agreed that was true (which I don’t), it would be a lesser problem than “if an attempted autocoup is unpunished for Trump, the next US President elected freely will be the last.”
27 comments
[ 0.17 ms ] story [ 74.7 ms ] threadAnd who would say that he's not allowed to run? Who would make the official pronouncement? The Federal Election Commission? Do you think this can happen without it turning into a Supreme Court case? Do you think the Supreme Court is just going to say, "yes, you're right, he can't run"? Give them as much reason as you can to agree with you.
More, even if he is guilty, it's important that you prove it to his supporters. Sure, some won't listen, no matter what proof you give. Some will, though, and it's important that you give them reason to get off the Trump train. If you don't, you'll just radicalize them when you say that he can't run again.
I'm personally undecided on what I think about it all.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751
Maybe America should consider doing that. South Korea has jailed four ex-presidents so far, and will likely continue to do so in the future. Somehow the country is fine. If anything, I think it helps establish the notion that nobody is above the law.
(Not saying everything is great in South Korean politics, of course. Ask any South Korean, and they'll argue to death that half of South Korea is selling out the country. The only difference is which half.)
Being a war criminal
If it allowed prosecution of people for being political opponents, sure, but that’s not the issue. (And its interesting that almost everyone making this case has, both before and even after making it, argued for the prosecution of their political opponents.)
OTOH, allowing political opposition to be a “get out of insurrection free” card, is an obvious existential risk.
> Nick Land puts it well: “If Trump is jailed, every US President will be from this point onwards.”
Even if I agreed that was true (which I don’t), it would be a lesser problem than “if an attempted autocoup is unpunished for Trump, the next US President elected freely will be the last.”