By TN Ashok in Washington
Trumps popularity may be growing with the sympathy factor from the far right with rising legal woes and indictments against his misdemanour and legal fees, but two noted legal experts say the constitution disqualifies Trump from entering White House and holding the President’s office for a 2nd time that he so eagerly desires.
Trump may be portrayed by far right that the accountability factor for the Jan. 6 Capitol riot is just another partisan dispute, but to aver are two prominent conservative legal scholars who have made srong case that the Constitution disqualifies former President Trump from public office, media reports said. This new twist and legal interpretation of the Capitol Hills insurecction on Janary 06,2022 has rather been overlooked by the juries indicting Trump of criminal conspiracy to subver the election process trampling on the voters rights to free franchise while delivering their verdicts.
Law professors William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas — both members of the conservative Federalist Society — argued in a law review article that Trump is already constitutionally forbidden from serving in public office because of Section Three of the 14th Amendment.
Better known as the Disqualification Clause, this amendment bars from office any government officer who takes an oath to defend the Constitution and then engages in or aids an insurrection against the United States. Only a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress can act to remove such a disability, reports said .
Legal pundits said its not surprising at all that Trump meets this standard. All three branches of the government have identified the attack on the Capitol as an insurrection, with multiple federal judges, bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate, as well as the bipartisan Jan. 6 House select committee, citing Trump as the main cause. He’s been charged with conspiracy with 18 others including his counsel Rudy Giuliani to subvert the election process to overturn the 2020 election results denying legitimate voters their rights to franchise.
Baude and Paulsen observed that: “Section Three requires no prior criminal-law conviction, for treason or any other defined crime, as a prerequisite for its disqualification to apply.” Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictment of Trump for election-related crimes only further enhances the case for his disqualification under the constitution.
What are the federal crimes that Trump is accused off : Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights by attempting to “oppress, threaten or intimidate” people in their free exercise and enjoyment of their right to vote, the reports said.
Even as Trump’s role in inciting the Capitol Hills insurrection through one of his podcasters the previous evening is well documented, Baude and Paulsen argued that the “full legal consequences” of Section Three “have not been appreciated or enforced.” as yet by any of the Juries. This is a new twist and angle to Trump’s indictments.
The Disqualification Clause is “an enforceable part of the Constitution” and its applicability is not just limited to the Civil War, but also not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation, the report said.”
The 14th amendment provisions are also “self-executing … without the need for additional action by Congress.” The professors noted, Section Three “can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications.”
Donald K. Sherman, executive vice president and chief counsel at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington recalled that in September last three New Mexico residents represented by him won the first case in more than 150 years removing an elected official from office based on participation in an insurrection.
The court ruled that then-New Mexico County Commissioner Couy Griffin had violated Section Three of the 14th Amendment by recruiting men for battle to join Trump’s “wild” effort to overturn the election Jan. 6, normalized violence and breached police barriers as part of the weaponized mob that allowed others to overwhelm law enforcement and storm the Capitol.
Griffin’s removal marked the first case at the federal or state level concluding that what occurred Jan. 6 was an insurrection, Sherman said in a paper.
In Griffin’s case, the court found that disqualifying officials under Section Three of the 14th Amendment does not conflict with the First Amendment right to protest. It also rebuffed attempts by Griffin to conflate Jan. 6 with Black Lives Matter protests, the HIll reported quoting Sherman.
Meanwhile, Baude and Paulsen explained that “to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them,” including “the free speech principles of the First Amendment.”
Section Three, both authors concluded that , covered a “broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order” and “a broad range of former offices, including the presidency.” They explicitly said that Section Three “disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.”
Every president, regardless of party, takes an oath to preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States. Enforcing the Disqualification Clause against an official who violated that oath is an act of patriotism, not partisanship. Baude and Paulsen correctly states, “Officials must enforce the Constitution because it is law … Section Three has legal force already.” The report said
The Disqualification Clause has already been used successfully to promote accountability for the insurrection, and, in the coming months, it will be used again to prevent Trump and others from serving in public office