Resolute Square

How the Court Should Deal with Trump Disqualification

Robert S. McElvaine: "If it wants to uphold the Constitution, the Court really has no choice but to find that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to hold the presidency again. Failure to do so would be a step towards Trump’s stated goal of terminating the Constitution."
Published:February 8, 2024
Share

Subscribe to Robert's Substack at Musings & Amusings of a B-List Writer.

By Robert S. McElvaine

The Supreme Court will be hearing arguments this week in the case of Trump v. Anderson. In two excellent recent essays, historian Timothy Snyder makes it absolutely clear that if the justices examine the context and intent of those who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment, Donald Trump is disqualified from ever holding the office of president – or any other office under the United States – again.

Let us begin with the text of Section 3 of the amendment:

“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.”

Some argue, absurdly, that the presidency is not an “office … under the United States.”

Utilizing briefs for the case researched by other historians, Snyder points out:

“The Constitution of 1787 describes the president as an officer holding an office. The president who held office in 1868, at the time of the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, called himself an "officer." The chief drafter of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, John Bingham, applied the word "officer" to the president. Bingham explicitly said that his phrasing applied to the presidency. When the issue arose in debate over the Fourteenth Amendment, it was understood that Section 3 applied to the president.”

As for the argument that a conviction of insurrection is necessary to disqualify someone, the amicus brief submitted by twenty-five historians shows conclusively that the "decision-makers crafted Section 3 to cover the President and to create an enduring check on insurrection, requiring no additional action from Congress."

Some current arguments assert that the disqualification provision was intended to apply only to those who had engaged in the rebellion of 1861-65. That, too, is refuted by a look at what those who created the Amendment said at the time. The amicus brief by five other historians explains:

“Five years and seven hundred thousand war deaths later, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment hoped not only to prevent a resurgence of secessionism but also to protect future generations against insurrectionism. An early draft of Section Three limiting its reach to those who had participated in ‘the late insurrection’ was eliminated in favor of language that disqualified both past and future insurrectionists who had taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. ‘This is to go into our Constitution and to stand to govern future insurrection as well as the present,” said one senator during floor debate.’”

The twenty-five historians’ brief includes the following:

“Republican Senator Peter Van Winkle of West Virginia said, ‘This is to go into our Constitution and to stand to govern future insurrection as well as the present…’ To this end, the Amnesty Acts of 1872 and 1898 did not pardon future insurrectionists.”
In his second piece, published today, Snyder uses another amicus brief by legal scholars Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar to make the point that Section 3 targeted

“… not all oath-breakers, not all insurrectionists, but precisely oath-breaking insurrectionists. 

That is Trump: an oath-breaking insurrectionist. And in the most extreme sense, since he broke his oath while still in office in a way that undid the purpose of his office, which is the most important office in the land.”

If it wants to uphold the Constitution, the Court really has no choice but to find that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to hold the presidency again. Failure to do so would be a step towards Trump’s stated goal of terminating the Constitution.

The huge problem is that removing Trump from the ballot by judicial decision would almost surely incite his cult followers to massive violence. Trump himself has said that “chaos and bedlam” would ensue if the Court decided against him. (Notice that Trump’s warning of “chaos and bedlam” is, in essence, another call for insurrection against the United States.)

The only hope for driving a stake through the heart of the hate-fueled authoritarian movement Trump heads is for him and the party that has turned against democracy at his direction to be decisively rejected by the voters. There is, of course, no guarantee that that will happen, and some of the current opinion polls are not encouraging on that score. I think, though, when it comes down to it in the fall, a substantial majority of the American electorate will vote to preserve the American Experiment in freedom and government by the people.

What, then, can the Court do that will preserve both the opportunity for Trumpism to be defeated by the voters and the clear intent of the Constitution to bar the Insurrectionist-in-Chief from office?

The text of Section 3 says “No person shall … hold any office …” It does not say that an insurrectionist is banned from seeking an office. Technically, there is no prohibition for such a person being on a ballot.

That distinction could provide a way for the Court to get around the dilemma it faces by ruling only that the Amendment does not require that an insurrectionist be removed from ballots and leaving a clear implication that in the event Trump were to win, the Court would have to follow the unmistakable intent of the Fourteenth Amendment and prevent him from taking office.

Such a post-November 5 decision to block the selection of the voters would almost certainly lead to even greater “chaos and bedlam” than a decision now barring him from running. But the Court indicating that Trump is an insurrectionist and should not be permitted to hold the presidency might lessen the possibility that he might win the election.

If he were to win and be disqualified from taking office, we would be left with whatever loon he chooses as his running mate becoming president (unless s/he also participated in the insurrection).

In a situation where there are no good options, a “you can run, but you can’t take office” decision appears to be the least bad one.

Related

  • Idiots Politicizing Disaster
    The Enemies List

    Rick Wilson's The Enemies List

    In a classic Rick rant, he breaks down the politicization of Hurricane Helene, criticizing the usual suspects (Trump, Elon Musk, etc) for spreading misinformation about FEMA's response. He highlights the coordinated, bipartisan efforts of federal and state governments in addressing the disaster and condemns the use of tragedies for political gain.
    October 7, 2024
  • Trump-Vance Project 2025: Replace Experts With Trump Loyalists
    Trump, Vance and Project 2025 are crystal clear that the first move of their right-wing takeover of American government would be the displacement of tens of thousands of non-partisan civil servants with political and personal loyalists. And they’re equally clear that displacing science and scientists is a central theme of that agenda.
    October 3, 2024
  • Michael Cohen: Lock Trump Up
    The Lincoln Project Podcast

    The Lincoln Project Podcast

    Rick Wilson and Michael Cohen break down Donald Trump’s declining mental state and the chaos of his ongoing campaign. They dive into his increasingly erratic debate performances, weakening rally appeal, and the dangerous global implications of a Trump return to power.
    October 3, 2024
  • Trump's Project 2025: Up Close and Personal: The Death of Science

    Trump's Project 2025: Up Close And Personal

    In Chapter 3, the fact-based fictional story of Dr. Yvette Hardman and JJ Newsom depicts the dismantling of expertise and science-based decision making in the federal government under a possible second Trump administration guided by Project 2025. Dr. Hardman, an experienced infectious disease expert, is removed from her position at the CDC and replaced by JJ Newsom, an unqualified political loyalist with no relevant experience. This reflects Project 2025's plan to fill government positions with partisan appointees rather than nonpartisan experts. The new administration rejects science-based pandemic response recommendations from Dr. Hardman instead prioritizing political and economic considerations over public health. This aligns with Project 2025's directives to limit the CDC's ability to make public health recommendations. The story highlights the Trump administration's hostility towards science and the displacement of experienced civil servants, which Project 2025 seeks to accelerate through measures like the "Schedule F" executive order to reclassify and fire federal employees. Overall, the narrative illustrates how a second Trump term guided by Project 2025 would undermine the role of expertise and independent scientific advice in government, with potentially disastrous consequences for public health and safety. We'd like to thank all the artists who volunteered their time to make this episode: CCH Pounder, Richard Schiff and Jason Kravits who read the chapters and Omid Abtahi, Tom Nichols, Laurie Burke and Joanne Carducci who did the voices. Sound design by Marilys Ernst and Jon Moser. Trump's Project 2025: Up Close and Personal was written by David Pepper and produced by Pepper, Melissa Jo Peltier and Jay Feldman and is a production of Ovington Avenue Productions and The Bill Press Pod.
    October 2, 2024
  • Donald Trump, The Lucky Loser
    The Enemies List

    Rick Wilson's The Enemies List

    It can feel at times like there's nothing we don't know about Trump. However, there are still a few select people who seem to be able to uncover more and more, giving us critical insight into the former President. In this episode, Rick interviews Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists Susanne Craig and Russ Buettner about their new book, Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success. They delve into Trump’s long-standing strategy of creating an illusion of wealth, his reliance on tax loopholes, and how he used his father's empire to prop up his failing ventures. The conversation also touches on Trump's role in the USFL's downfall, his relationship with banks, and the lasting impact of The Apprentice on his public image. Susanne and Russ' book, Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success, available now.
    October 2, 2024