Posted on 12/20/2023 10:50:25 AM PST by Ultra Sonic 007
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled yesterday that Donald Trump will not appear on the ballot in 2024 because he is an insurrectionist and the 14th Amendment does not permit insurrectionists to hold federal office. Some of you may recall our August 2023 post on this matter. Both J. Michael Luttig, a retired George W. Bush-appointed federal judge whose judicial philosophy has drawn comparisons to the late Antonin Scalia, and Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe (who taught constitutional law to Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito), believe that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies Trump.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment reads:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Here is a taste of Jordan Rubin’s interview with Luttig at MSNBC.Com:
Jordan Rubin: Judge, you’ve been thinking a lot lately about this 14th Amendment issue. Why is it so important to democracy, in your view?
J. Michael Luttig: Section 3 of the 14th Amendment … disqualifies any person who, having taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, thereafter engages in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States, disqualifying that person from holding high public office in the future, including the presidency. So it’s more than just a proscription and disqualification for anti-democratic conduct by an individual, but, in this circumstance, it is that and it would apply in this instance to disqualify the former president from holding the presidency again, because of his effort, plan and attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election, knowing that he had lost that election to then-candidate Joe Biden. This is very, very important: Section 3 disqualifies one who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States, not an insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or the authority of the United States. And so that’s the issue in Colorado and in Minnesota, and in the other states that are currently involved in the constitutional process to determine whether the former president is disqualified.
JR: What do you think of criticism that suggests it’s wrong to keep Trump off the ballot using this process, as opposed to “letting the voters decide,” as a critic would say?
JML: I have seen that criticism, if you will, of applying Section 3 to the former president. And it concerned me because it’s a legitimate question to be asked. But I’ve responded publicly to that concern by explaining that the disqualification that’s provided for under Section 3 is not itself anti-democratic at all. Rather, it’s the conduct that can result in disqualification under the 14th Amendment that the Constitution says is anti-democratic. So there’s no question whatsoever that disqualification of an individual who satisfies the conditions of disqualification in Section 3 is not anti-democratic. Again, it’s the conduct that gives rise to disqualification that the Constitution tells us is anti-democratic.
JR: Sometimes when I’ve heard these criticisms, it almost sounds like more of a criticism against the Constitution itself — sort of a problem with having the ability to take someone off the ballot — more than an application of it.
JML: That’s exactly the way to think of it. And another way of saying it is: it is the Constitution itself that provides for disqualification. So there’s no possible way that the Constitution itself can be understood as anti-democratic.
JR: As you mentioned, we have these cases that are playing out across the country. Whatever happens in Colorado, Minnesota, Michigan or wherever else, the issue has to get to the Supreme Court somehow, doesn’t it?
JML: It does. This is the process contemplated by the Constitution. And the Constitution likewise contemplates that this decision will ultimately be entrusted to the Supreme Court of the United States, which will interpret the language, the clear language, of Section 3, and decide whether or not the former president is disqualified.
JR: To ask the natural follow-up, do you have any inkling about how the Supreme Court might look at this issue?
JML: I would only say this: All that any of us are able to do is evaluate the positive, objective law — in this instance, the Constitution and Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Under the plain, clear terms of Section 3, the former president would be disqualified from holding the presidency again — specifically, for the reason that his plan and effort and attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election and remain in power, notwithstanding that the American people had voted to confer the powers of the presidency on Joe Biden, constitutes a clear violation of the Executive Vesting Clause in the Constitution, which prescribes that a president will hold office for only a four-year term, unless and until he is re-elected to the presidency by the American people. The former president’s effort to overturn the election and remain in power is precisely what constitutes a rebellion against the Constitution of the United States.
Read the rest here.
If the SC overturns this ruling, both Luttig and Lawrence Tribe should be facing the same treatment as John Eastman - disbarment.
IFF (if and ONLY if) a candidate is CONVICTED of insurrection in a court of law, the ruling might be correct, pending determination of whether the Presidency is an elected office “under the United States”, DESPITE the fact that the enumerated list presented omits both POTUS and VPOTUS.
The text, to me, is clear - President and VP are NOT included. But, I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.
If you saw this judge’s testimony before the J6 committee you would KNOW this judge is a French fry short of a happy meal!! He is one step away from being Joe Biden in the dementia department!!
Not much. GWB vies with Obama and Biden for the “worst President” title.
“ because he is an insurrectionist ”
When was that determined? I mean officially in the courts.
Oh, it hasn’t?
I would respectfully tell hizzoner to pound sand.
He is gaslighting the liberal mantra: “...the clear language...”
Another senile fool who forgot about Section 1, the “due process” clause. Just shows that judges are nothing special.
Why dos he keep citing what is ‘undemocratic’? I don’t see that word in the cited section of Constitution. Also, is the accusation of insurrection good enough? Do you need a conviction?
Purposefully creating a murky situation - not to mention none of what Trump did on 1/06 had anything to do with insurrection.
What an ignorant ass. First of all, there was no insurrection, literally none. There was no mechanism to seize the control of government, nobody was armed, nothing. There was one unruly protest at a government building, and President Trump had nothing to do with it.
“whose judicial philosophy has drawn comparisons to the late Antonin Scalia, and Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe”
There’s almost nothing in common between those two. And conveniently, the youth Scalia to give bona fides to the man making the statement. However, Scalia is dead and cannot object.
aren’t all NEVERTRUMPs conservative?
I would’ve thought that a judge, supposedly strong on the constitution, would know that the United States of America is a republic, not a democracy. I expect Democrats to talk about “our democracy“ because they would like to have the pure democracy represented by two foxes and one chicken voting on what to have for lunch
“...Donald Trump will not appear on the ballot in 2024 because he is an insurrectionist...”
I must have missed the insurrection charges, trial and conviction. Was it done at midnight of the same night while I was sleeping, Sanhedrin-style?
Where’s that list of judges that flew on Epstein’s plane?
“Going back to 2005 and 2006, this website was rife with articles about how great of a judge Luttig was.
How the times change. (Or perhaps serving as Boeing’s general counsel for 13 years changed some other things...)”
Yeah, he was backup to Roberts. We would’ve gotten a pantywaist either way.
Is there something in the Colorado Constitution that allows their SC to determine guilt or innocence without due process, and if so, isn’t that against the US Constitution?
Judges are amongst the stupidest and most arrogant people in our society because they derive their professional stature not by technical acumen or great insight, but by the authority granted to them only.
“So there’s no possible way that the Constitution itself can be understood as anti-democratic.”
The man is equivocating. Not a person opposed to the ruling has come close to saying that. They are saying the bogus application to Trump is anti-democratic and Congress has already passed a law on how to implement it and what the Colorado Supreme Court did ain’t it.
I don’t care who the man is, to say that, he is an idiot or liar.
By the way, why do the pundits not mention that Judge Roberts has already ruled that the president of the United States is not an officer of the government, but an elected official.
Another Bush-era UniParty loser.
Sure don’t need an old retired judge determining who I can vote for.
boeing gc?
must be a haley supporter
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.