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.
How the times change. (Or perhaps serving as Boeing's general counsel for 13 years changed some other things...)
Colorado ping.
rino crank says what ?
dont care.
these people are trying to start civil war.
commies and rinos
Pinging AC because you might be in a position to remember how Luttig was lauded on FR back in the early 2000s.
Pinging woodpusher to show another example of a judge who (”conservative” bonafides notwithstanding) doesn’t know how Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is applied.
This is why the Dems and media called the riot an insurection.
Well, he’s certainly entitled to his opinion......no matter how asinine
We now see how the Gangster State keeps itself in power contra the wishes of The People
A Bushie is coming after Trump with his hatchet. Basic constitutional law is that a judge can’t just declare that person committed the crime of insurrection based upon so much hearsay from a sham Congressional committee. Insurrection is a serious charge that requires evidence which is admissible in a court of law, and the right to confront and cross exam witnesses. None of that has happened so far.
It’s also why they made sure people got inside the Capitol Building on J6.
Marxist scum never do anything without a (usually very evil) plan.
Yeah and 51 former intel leaders stated that the laptop was Russian misinformation!!!! This judge is obviously a BUSHY, Lincoln Project Republican!!
Trump’s exceptional talent is the ability to trigger Regime RINOs and get them to out themselves.
Kangaroo judges believes “Guilt By Accusation”.
When was Trump convicted of said accusation?
Or does this judge not understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty?
Perhaps he doesn’t understand what Brady materials are either?
Trump has not had a trial, nor access to Brady materials. That’s not justice, that’s something else. Something that any Judge, former Judge, or Lawyer thinks is acceptable should immediately and universally deprive them of a legal license in all states.
Exclusive: Read Judge Luttig’s statement to January 6 committee
CNN has obtained a statement from retired federal judge J. Michael Luttig, a Republican who is testifying at Thursday’s January 6 committee hearing. Luttig will provide a sharp condemnation of former President Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election, saying Trump and his allies “instigated” a war on democracy “so that he could cling to power.”
The war on democracy instigated by the former president and his political party allies on January 6 was the natural and foreseeable culmination of the war for America. It was the final fateful day for the execution of a well-developed plan by the former president to overturn the 2020 presidential election at any cost, so that he could cling to power that the American People had decided to confer upon his successor, the next president of the United States instead. Knowing full well that he had lost the 2020 presidential election, the former president and his allies and supporters falsely claimed and proclaimed to the nation that he had won the election, and then he and they set about to overturn the election that he and they knew the former president had lost.
In retrospect, did GW Bush do ANYTHING right? (Pun intended)
And if those charges aren’t made? Oh, just in case. I see. 🖕
MSNBC interview. Whatsamatta, Judge, got some gambling debts to cover?
Luttig is obviously either a never-Trump hater or senile. Excluding Trump by the 14th amendment would at minimum require a conviction for insurrection, and he hasn’t been convicted of anything.
We can be thankful the obnoxious little fat man Luttig is no longer on the federal court.
I guess this dumb ass judge doesn’t know that the President is specifically not mentioned in that section of the Constitution while others are. Second, again for a supposed judge, he doesn’t understand that Trump is not and never has been charged with insurrection let alone convicted of it. But, guess one can expect that kind of non reasoning from a Bush appointed judge.
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.