Podcast Summary
Trump's eligibility to run for president under section 3 of the 14th amendment: The 14th amendment's section 3 cannot be used to constitutionally disqualify Trump from running for president, and states cannot exclude him from the ballot based on this section.
The argument being made in case 23 7 19, Trump versus Anderson, is that President Trump cannot be constitutionally disqualified from serving as president under section 3 of the 14th amendment based on the definition of "officer of the United States" in the constitution. Furthermore, states cannot exclude presidential candidates from the ballot based on this section, as it is the responsibility of Congress to implement any disqualifications. The secretary of state does not have the authority to prevent an insurrectionist from running for office, and any attempt to do so would be a violation of term limits. The proper analogy is to state residency laws, which cannot be moved earlier than the constitutionally imposed deadline.
Can states disqualify federal candidates for past insurrection involvement?: The Colorado Supreme Court is considering whether states can enforce constitutional provisions against federal candidates for past insurrection involvement without Congressional approval, expanding beyond the requirements of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
The discussion revolves around the constitutional qualifications for federal offices and the role of states in enforcing them. The question at hand is whether a state can disqualify a federal candidate from an election based on their past involvement in an insurrection, even if they have no intention of residing in that state during the election. The Colorado Supreme Court is considering going beyond the requirements of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bans insurrectionists from holding federal office, by requiring Congress to grant states the authority to disqualify such individuals. The debate centers around the definition of "self-executing" provisions and whether this extends to allowing states to enforce constitutional provisions against federal candidates without Congressional approval. The case of Griffin v. Illinois, which established this principle, is not binding precedent but has influenced Congressional action in the past. The key issue remains whether states can enforce Section 3 against their own officials or if this is an exclusive federal matter.
Interpreting the Self-Executing Nature of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment: The interpretation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and its self-executing nature is a complex issue, with debates surrounding the need for precedent, the distinction between enforcing and adding qualifications for federal office, and the permissibility of congressional legislation to exclude insurrectionists from the ballot.
The discussion revolves around the interpretation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and its self-executing nature. The argument suggests that without precedent like Griffin's case, it would be challenging to establish that Section 3 preempts state legislation regarding federal officers. The debate also touches upon the distinction between enforcing and adding qualifications for federal office, and the permissibility of congressional legislation to authorize states to exclude insurrectionists from the ballot, provided it meets the congruence and proportionality test. The use of the term "self-executing" is debated, with some preferring to directly address the question of who can enforce Section 3 with respect to a presidential candidate. The potential consequences of the Colorado Supreme Court's decision could include allowing other states to apply their choice of law rules and collateral estoppel against former President Trump.
Colorado Decision on Trump's Eligibility Could Impact Other States: The Colorado Supreme Court's decision on Trump's eligibility for the presidential ballot based on term limits could lead to conflicting decisions and inconsistent interpretations of the same evidence in other states.
That the Colorado Supreme Court's decision on President Trump's eligibility for the presidential ballot based on term limits could have far-reaching consequences for other states and potentially lead to different factual findings and interpretations of the law. The lack of preclusive effect of this decision in other lawsuits could result in conflicting decisions and interpretations of the same evidence. The arguments against the Colorado Supreme Court's decision are not just based on term limits but also on the potential for inconsistent factual findings and the importance of maintaining a uniform application of constitutional requirements. These considerations reinforce each other and add weight to the argument that the Colorado Supreme Court's decision should be reversed.
Determining Disqualification for Office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment: The enforcement of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies individuals from holding office if they engaged in an insurrection, is a nuanced issue with a distinction between categorical and non-categorical determinations. Congress has the power to lift the disqualification through a 2/3 vote.
The enforcement of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies individuals from holding office if they have engaged in or led an insurrection or rebellion against the United States, is a complex issue. The discussion revolves around the distinction between categorical and non-categorical determinations. A categorical determination would mean that once a person falls into the category of having engaged in an insurrection, they are disqualified from holding office without any further action. However, the case law and constitutional provisions suggest that the disqualification is not categorical. Congress has the power to lift the disqualification through a 2/3 vote, which implies that there can be a determination of whether a person engaged in an insurrection, but that determination does not automatically result in disqualification. The tension between the ability of one house of Congress to determine qualifications and the need for a 2/3 vote to lift a disqualification is acknowledged, but it is not seen as an insurmountable obstacle. In summary, the enforcement of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is a nuanced issue that involves both a determination of whether an individual engaged in an insurrection and the potential for Congress to lift the disqualification.
Supreme Court Debates Meaning of 'Office Under the United States' in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment: Justices debated whether the presidency should be considered an 'office under the United States' in the context of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, with some emphasizing the distinction between 'office' and 'officer', and others arguing that the presidency fits under the broader term 'officer of the United States'.
During a Supreme Court case discussion on the meaning of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment regarding disqualifications for holding certain offices, the justices explored the relevance of historical cases like Griffin's and the arguments for and against the presidency being considered an "office under the United States." The debate centered around the distinction between "office" and "officer," with some justices arguing that the presidency should not be considered an "office under the United States" due to its absence in the list, while others pointed out that the term "officer of the United States" appears frequently throughout the Constitution and could encompass the presidency. The justices also acknowledged potential implications for other constitutional clauses, such as the emoluments clause and the impeachment disqualification clause. Ultimately, the discussion underscored the complexity and nuance of interpreting constitutional language and the importance of considering historical context and textual meaning.
The President is an Officer, Not an Officeholder: The distinction between an 'office' and an 'officer' under the U.S. Constitution affects presidential disqualification, as the president is considered an officer rather than an officeholder, allowing them to run for office after being impeached or resigning.
The distinction between an "office" and an "officer" under the U.S. Constitution, as outlined in Section 3, has profound implications for presidential disqualification. Members of Congress cannot hold offices under the United States due to the Incompatibility Clause, but the presidency is not considered an office under the United States, making the president an officer rather than an officeholder. This interpretation, which has been debated and compromised throughout history, raises questions about the rationale behind this rule and its implications for disqualifying insurrectionists from holding office. Despite the lack of clear evidence from the founding generation on this distinction, it is a textually supported argument that has fewer implications for other rules. However, it is worth considering why such a rule would exist, as it seems counterintuitive that only presidents who have not held high office before would be exempt from disqualification. The compromise nature of this legislation adds to the complexity of this issue.
Interpreting 'Officers of the United States' in Presidential Eligibility: The distinction between appointed and elected officials determines whether they're considered 'officers of the United States', affecting presidential eligibility and potential insurrection prosecution.
The discussion revolved around the interpretation of the term "officers of the United States" in the context of the President's eligibility for office after an insurrection. The argument hinged on the distinction between appointed and elected officials, with the former being officers of the United States and the latter not. The commission's clause, impeachment clause, and appointments clause were all cited as evidence supporting this interpretation. The historical precedent from Griffin's case was also discussed, with the reliance of Congress on this precedent reinforcing the argument. The current situation involves the federal insurrection statute 2383 as the only remaining enforcement mechanism, and the case could potentially be resolved if Congress decides to enact additional legislation. The presidential immunity argument was also mentioned in relation to potential prosecution under 2383.
The constitutionality of removing a president through means other than impeachment: While Congress may have the power to remove a president through other means, such as a quarantine provision, there are potential constitutional concerns and debated interpretations of the 14th Amendment's application to the presidency.
The constitutionality of removing a sitting president from office through means other than impeachment is a complex issue with no clear-cut answer. During the discussion, it was argued that the president does not have an absolute right to remain in office and that Congress has the power to remove him through other means, such as a quaranto provision. However, there are potential constitutional concerns, such as the potential tension with the impeachment process and the question of whether such a provision would apply to federal officers as well as state ones. It was also pointed out that historical precedent shows that impeachment is not the only way to remove federal officials, and the president may not have a due process right to be heard in the context of ballot access. Ultimately, the question of whether the presidency is one of the "barred offices" under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is a debated issue, with some arguing that the Amendment's language suggests that it applies to the presidency, while others argue that the historical context points to a different intent.
Disagreement over intent of Section 3 of 14th Amendment: The Supreme Court is debating the meaning of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits individuals from holding public office if they have engaged in insurrection or rebellion, and its application to the January 6, 2021, events.
During this Supreme Court hearing, there was a disagreement between the parties regarding the intent of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies individuals from holding public office who have previously engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States. While some argued that the framers' primary concern was preventing Confederate insurrectionists from regaining control of the government, others believed that the focus was on preventing individuals from assuming the presidency. The court also discussed the role of states in enforcing this provision and whether the events of January 6, 2021, could be considered an insurrection. Ultimately, it seems that the court is grappling with the interpretation and application of this historic provision in the context of the present case.
Post-Civil War concerns over Confederate states acting as 'bad actors' in elections: The 14th Amendment doesn't implicitly authorize states to disqualify national candidates, as the power to run presidential elections lies with Article 2 and states have the broad power to determine elector selection.
During the post-Civil War era, there were concerns about former Confederate states continuing to act as "bad actors" in elections. However, the 14th Amendment, which restricts state power, did not implicitly authorize states to disqualify national candidates. Instead, the authority to run presidential elections lies with Article 2, and states have the broad power to determine how their electors are selected. The lack of examples of states disqualifying national candidates can be explained by the fact that elections worked differently back then, and by the 1890s, everyone had received amnesty, making such issues moot. Therefore, the argument that the 14th Amendment implicitly authorizes states to enforce the presidential election process is at odds with its overall thrust and is ahistorical.
The constitutionality of a former president being disqualified from office due to insurrection: The interpretation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and the role of Congress in determining presidential eligibility is a complex issue, with no clear answer as to whether states or federal means should decide.
The constitutionality of a former president being disqualified from holding office due to insurrection is a complex issue with no clear-cut answer. While some argue that this question is of national importance and should be determined by federal means, others believe that states have the power to make this determination under their constitutional authority. The discussion revolved around the interpretation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and the role of Congress in determining the processes and definitions related to this issue. Ultimately, the question remains open as to whether a single state should have the power to decide who can be president for the entire nation. The court acknowledged that this is a difficult question and that the processes and definitions involved are significant. The debate continues on whether the 14th Amendment grants Congress exclusive authority to create the process for determining presidential eligibility or if states can make this determination on their own.
President Trump's eligibility for office challenged based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment: Section 3 of the 14th Amendment allows for the removal of disabilities preventing individuals from holding federal office, but its application to current situations raises questions about collateral attacks on official actions and state regulation of federal ballots.
The case revolves around President Trump's own statements and actions, which are being used as evidence to challenge his eligibility for office based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The state's authority to regulate the ballot for federal offices comes from the Constitution, specifically from Article 2 or the 10th Amendment's reserved powers. The debate centers around the application of Section 3, which deals with disqualifications for holding office, and whether it can be used to regulate who can run for federal offices. The unique aspect of Section 3 is that it allows for the removal of certain disabilities, such as those related to insurrection against the Constitution, which cannot be removed under other qualifications for office. The discussion also touched upon the fact that the disability exists now and cannot be negated by Congress's power to remove it. The case raises questions about the collateral attack on official actions of an officer holding a position and the implications for state efforts to regulate the ballot for federal offices.
Interpreting the 14th Amendment's Insurrection Clause: The 14th Amendment's Insurrection Clause could lead to disputes over who can hold federal office if enforced, potentially impacting presidential elections. The definition of insurrection and its enforcement lies with Congress, not individual states.
The discussion revolves around the interpretation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies individuals involved in insurrection or rebellion against the United States from holding federal office. The concern is that if this section is enforced, there could be a flood of disputes in various states regarding what constitutes insurrection and who should be disqualified. This could potentially lead to a handful of states deciding the presidential election. The argument is that the section has been dormant for over a century due to a settled understanding that the power to interpret and enforce it lies with Congress, not individual states. The court could clarify the definition of insurrection to emphasize its rarity and the extraordinary nature of an assault on constitutionally mandated functions. However, there are questions about the plenary power of states to change election rules after the fact.
The constitutional authority of a disqualified president in the electoral process: The power to determine electors for a disqualified president is a complex issue, with some advocating for state legislative control and others for de facto officer doctrine. Uniformity in application can be addressed through federal legislation, but the ultimate compulsion for lower officials to obey disqualified presidents' orders is unclear.
The constitutional authority of a disqualified president, particularly in the context of the presidential electoral process, is a complex issue. While some argue that state legislatures have the power to determine electors, others believe that the de facto officer doctrine may come into play, requiring obedience to the disqualified president's orders until a proper procedure for adjudicating the disqualification is in place. This procedure could include impeachment. The concern for uniformity in the application of these rules across states can be addressed through federal legislation, but it may not be necessary if states provide sufficient process for determining disqualification. Ultimately, the question of what compels lower officials to obey orders from a disqualified president remains unanswered, and further discussion on this point may be necessary.
Protecting Against Insurgents: Multiple Layers of Safeguards: The Constitution's federal system and Section 14th Amendment provide multiple safeguards against insurgents holding office. State enforcement and Supreme Court decisions offer protection, but application of rules like Daubert and admission of expert testimony may vary.
The framers of the Constitution designed a system with federalism to ensure multiple layers of safeguards against insurrectionists and rebels holding office. The ability of states to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which deals with disqualifying individuals from holding office who have engaged in insurrection or given aid and comfort to the enemies, adds an additional layer of protection. The Supreme Court would decide on the legal standard and which record is correct when faced with different records, rulings, and standards of proof from various states. Ultimately, the court would decide the issue for the country, and it's unlikely that any court would reach a different decision than the US Supreme Court, especially when the facts are indisputable. However, the admission of expert testimony and application of rules like Daubert could vary from state to state.
States' role in presidential eligibility and potential conflicts: Justice Sotomayor raised concerns about potential conflicts and constitutional crises if the court limits states' power to enforce presidential eligibility requirements, and questioned the need for implementing legislation.
The discussion revolved around the potential consequences of a court decision regarding the power of states to determine presidential eligibility. Justice Sotomayor raised concerns about the potential for conflicts and constitutional crises if the court rules that states do not have the authority to enforce such qualifications. She also questioned the need for implementing legislation and pointed to historical precedents of Congress refusing to seat ineligible members. The debate also touched on the First Amendment implications and the balance of power between states and the federal government in determining presidential candidates.
Understanding the distinction between 'office' and 'officer' in the U.S. Constitution: The distinction between 'office' and 'officer' is crucial for interpreting constitutional clauses related to appointments and commissions. Officers hold offices, but not all receive their commissions from the President. Fairness in determining eligibility for national offices is a concern, but Trump received a fair trial.
The distinction between "office" and "officer" in the U.S. Constitution is important to understand, particularly when interpreting clauses related to appointments and commissions. An officer is a person who holds an office, but not all officers receive their commissions from the President. For instance, the President pro tem of the Senate and the Speaker of the House are officers of the United States, but they don't hold an office under the United States due to the Incompatibility Clause. This distinction can be confusing, but it's essential to correctly interpret the Constitution. Additionally, concerns have been raised about the fairness of state processes in determining eligibility for national offices, as evidenced by language in a dissenting opinion in this case. However, it was emphasized that President Trump received a fair trial and had the opportunity to present his case fully.
Protecting Democracy: A Constitutional Safeguard: The constitutional provision, Section 3, protects democracy by preventing individuals who violate their oath to the constitution from holding federal office.
The constitutional provision in question, Section 3, was designed to protect democracy by preventing individuals who had violated their oath to the constitution from holding federal office. The framers understood that criminal prosecutions alone were not sufficient, and so they included a civil disqualification penalty. This tool still exists in the form of federal criminal statutes, such as Section 2383 of Title 18, which prohibits insurrection and disqualifies convicted individuals from holding federal office. While the argument in this case focuses on the role of states in enforcing Section 3, the broader principle of protecting democracy and ensuring that those who have violated their oaths to the constitution cannot hold office is a fundamental constitutional safeguard.
Preventing Charismatic Rebels from the Presidency: The framers of the US Constitution focused on preventing charismatic rebels from becoming president, but the lack of clear language regarding the presidency in the 14th Amendment has led to ambiguity.
The framers of the US Constitution were primarily concerned with preventing charismatic rebels from rising to the presidency, rather than focusing on local elections in the South as some argue. However, the lack of clear language regarding the presidency in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which lists offices held by disqualified persons, has led to ambiguity. While some argue that electors and senators were intentionally included to cover all offices, others suggest that the absence of the presidency from the list raises questions about the framers' intentions. If the court rules that Colorado did not have the authority to exclude a presidential candidate from the ballot, the issue may return after the election for Congress to decide whether the president-elect is disqualified and whether to count their votes. Ultimately, the lack of clear federal procedure for deciding such issues adds complexity to the situation.
Political party candidates must meet eligibility requirements and disqualified candidates can be challenged: States have the power to set their own rules for presidential elections, including determining eligibility and challenging disqualified candidates, while respecting candidates' due process rights.
The Colorado Supreme Court has established that political party candidates for an election must meet the qualifications for eligibility, as confirmed by the fact that write-in candidates also need to be qualified. The secretary of state plays a role in determining if a candidate should be disqualified based on objective, knowable information. If there's a challenge, the 113 process can be used for judicial review. States have varying degrees of judicial review for the secretary of state's determination, and some states have no mechanism to exclude a disqualified candidate from the ballot. The elector's clause of the U.S. Constitution grants states broad authority to determine how to run their presidential elections, and this includes setting different rules and procedures for ballot challenges. Candidates have a due process right and a liberty interest in being able to access the ballot.
Supreme Court's Discretion in State Disqualifications from Presidential Ballots: The Supreme Court determines its standard of review for state disqualifications from presidential ballots, considering factors like the procedure employed and the 14th Amendment. The court should trust the system and not be swayed by threats or potential cascading effects.
The Supreme Court has the discretion to decide its standard of review for cases involving state disqualifications from presidential ballots, which could vary depending on the procedure employed by the state. The court could exercise independent review or give deference to the factual and legal conclusions of the state. The disqualification based on insurrection is considered the same as any other disqualification, but some argue that it's more complicated due to the 14th Amendment and Congress's role. The potential cascading effect of a court decision in one state on presidential candidates across the country is a concern, but the elector's clause assumes some messiness of federalism, and Congress can act if needed. The court should have faith in the system and not take seriously threats of retaliation by other states.
Institutions handling electoral disputes must follow constitutional provisions: Courts must ensure electoral laws don't discriminate or impose unconstitutional qualifications, and the de facto officer doctrine may not protect unconstitutionally appointed officials from legal challenges
That the institutions in place to handle electoral disputes include state electoral rules, their administrators, courts, and ultimately, the Supreme Court. However, these institutions must exercise their power in a manner consistent with other constitutional provisions and restrictions. For instance, a state cannot use its power under the electors clause to discriminate based on race or impose qualifications beyond what the constitution allows. The Colorado supreme court's decision in the case at hand, which changes the criteria for presidential candidates to meet before the election, is problematic as it moves the deadline forward in time. The courts have consistently disapproved of state laws requiring congressional candidates to show residency before the election, and it's unclear how this case can be distinguished. The de facto officer doctrine, which could potentially mitigate the consequences of the court's decision, was not used in recent Supreme Court cases involving unconstitutionally appointed officers. If the court rejects the rationale of a previous case and agrees with the argument that President Trump is disqualified from holding office, every executive action taken by the Trump administration during its last two weeks could be vulnerable to attack under the Administrative Procedure Act. If President Trump is reelected and sworn in, any executive action he takes could also be attacked in federal court.
