Donald Trump triggers the politics of emergency

Home Principles About Contact

Terms Privacy GDPR FAQ

#donaldtrump #triggersemergency #policy #washingtonpost
President Donald Trump unconstitutionally refused to honor the 2020 election result and sought to disrupt it. Does that mean it’s unconstitutional to honor the results of the 2024 election if Trump wins? This confusing logic is about to be thrown into the legal-constitutional whirlpool of the presidential campaign and is pushing American institutions to their limits. The basis is Section 3 of 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, which disqualifies public officials who “engage in rebellion” or “provide aid or comfort to their enemies” against United States. Following this language, House of Representatives dismissed Trump on charges of “sedition” following the gang violence at Capitol on January 6, 2021. Media and academic attention to 14th Amendment’s disqualification provision increased after the riot, but waned after Senate acquitted Trump. This seemed to remove his disqualification from the table. But a new 126-page article by two leading original law professors argues that Trump’s January 6 disqualification was “automatic” and not controlled by the outcome of a congressional process or criminal case. The article, scheduled for publication in University Pennsylvania Law Review, adds significantly to the intellectual arsenal of activists and officials who will try to get Trump out 2024 vote. Indeed, article is read not only as a scholarly inquiry into the original meaning of amendment, but also as a call to action “Authorities—administrators, courts, legislators—whose responsibilities require them to properly and legally enforce Chapter Three can, really should. Testing this advice now seems inevitable. Trump leads the Republican primaries. It only takes one official in a state to disqualify Trump to act on a legal appeal. If there is any state supreme court – in California? Illinois? Vermont? Agreeing with Baude and Paulsen, Trump would appeal U.S. Supreme Court, and it would be difficult to avoid a request for judges rule on the constitutionality of removing a presidential candidate from ballot. Follow this author Opinions of Jason Willick Since the 2021 Senate acquittal, even Trump’s most staunch opponents seem have seen disqualifying the 14th Amendment as a viable way to block him in 2024. start. Such disqualification efforts, running in parallel with Trump’s four criminal prosecutions, will further polarize the public in the pro-Trump and anti-Trump camps. According to Post’s report, Justice Department has stopped criminally pursuing Trump until House’s elected committee on Capitol attack raises political fervor. A similar dynamic may apply with disqualification as centre-left Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans, who may previously have been uncomfortable with radical move of kicking a candidate out of the ballot box, acclimate to idea. If threat from Trump continues to grow, the view of order will shift towards a politics of emergency. In emergencies, of course, civil liberties tend to be curtailed. Baude and Paulsen acknowledge