For decades, as students of the United States Constitution, we have analyzed and immersed ourselves in its intricacies. One of us has served as a U.S. Court of Appeals judge, while the other is a professor of constitutional law. We have dedicated our professional lives to advocating, studying, and practicing constitutional law. Through our extensive research, we have discovered a powerful protection within the Fourteenth Amendment that safeguards the republic against a treasonous president.
Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, often overlooked, safeguards our nation from the dissolution of the republic. This section automatically disqualifies any individual from holding office or position of power in the U.S. government, as well as in sovereign states and their subdivisions, if they have taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and subsequently rebel against it. This rebellion can take the form of overt insurrection or providing aid and comfort to the enemies of the Constitution.
Given the unprecedented federal and state indictments against former President Donald Trump, many wonder if a conviction would be sufficient to prevent him from running for the presidency in 2024. However, considering our extensive examination of the text, history, and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause, we concluded that a conviction is not the determining factor. The disqualification clause operates independently of criminal and impeachment proceedings, as well as congressional legislation. Its purpose is to immediately disqualify those who betray their oaths to the Constitution, whether through armed rebellion or attempting to overturn a presidential election through nonviolent means.
Former President Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and the subsequent attack on the U.S. Capitol clearly fall within the purview of the disqualification clause. Therefore, he is ineligible to serve as president again. The most urgent constitutional question facing our country today is whether we will adhere to this clear directive of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause.
We were pleased to discover that an extensively researched article, soon to be published in an academic journal, has arrived at the same conclusion as us. This article, titled “The Sweep and Force of Section Three,” authored by legal scholars William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, has garnered attention beyond the scholarly community. We were inspired to write this piece by the encouragement of Jeffrey Sonnenfeld and Anjani Jain from the Yale School of Management.
Baude and Paulsen provide momentous evidence supporting the continued relevance of Section 3. They argue that the provision is not limited to the generation of Confederate rebels but applies to any former officeholder who engages in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution. They also contend that Section 3 does not require legislative or judicial action to enforce its disqualification. It is “self-executing” and independent of other legal processes.
Furthermore, they argue that disqualification under Section 3 is not a punishment or deprivation of rights but a necessary measure to protect the integrity of public office. Anyone who fails to meet the Constitution’s qualifications does not have a constitutional entitlement to hold public office. Baude and Paulsen assert that Section 3 has a broad scope, encompassing any actions that constitute insurrection or rebellion against the constitutional order and support of enemies of the United States.
It is significant and noteworthy that Baude and Paulsen, both prominent conservative constitutional scholars associated with the Federalist Society, come to these conclusions. Their analysis draws from a deep understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment’s text and history. They unequivocally state that the events surrounding the attempted overturning of the 2020 presidential election and the attack on the Capitol qualify as “insurrection” or “rebellion.” Trump’s involvement in these actions renders him ineligible for the presidency or any other office covered by the Constitution.
The events of January 6 were widely recognized as an insurrection by Democrats and key Republicans. Anyone who witnessed the assault on our democracy and learned about the various attempts to overturn the election leading up to it would arrive at the same conclusion. To argue otherwise is to undermine the significance and importance of the Constitution of the United States.
In conclusion, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Section 3 provides a vital safeguard against treasonous leaders. Its disqualification clause automatically bars individuals who betray their oath to the Constitution from holding future public office. The evidence presented by legal scholars Baude and Paulsen supports this interpretation. We must not overlook this crucial protection, especially in light of recent events, and ensure that the Constitution is upheld to preserve the integrity of our democracy.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
