Two Conservative Law Professors Argue Trump is Ineligible to be President
Two conservative law professors from the University of Chicago and the University of St. Thomas have concluded that Donald Trump is ineligible to be president under a provision of the Constitution that bars individuals who have engaged in an insurrection from holding government office. The professors, who are active members of the Federalist Society and proponents of originalism, have extensively studied the question and will publish their findings in a forthcoming article in The University of Pennsylvania Law Review.
Initially uncertain of the answer, the professors delved into the provision and uncovered evidence suggesting that Trump cannot run for president, become president, or hold office unless granted amnesty by two-thirds of Congress for his conduct on January 6th. While their law review article may not change the current reality of Trump’s status as the Republican front-runner, it may encourage and support lawsuits from other candidates and voters arguing that the Constitution renders him ineligible for office.
The professors’ article argues that there is substantial evidence demonstrating that Trump engaged in an insurrection, including attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, pressuring the vice president to violate the Constitution, and remaining silent during the attack on the Capitol. They claim that it is fair to say that Trump was involved in the insurrection through both his actions and inactions.
While the article has received praise from some, others have criticized it, calling the analysis anti-historical and excessively broad. However, the professors maintain that their study of the historical evidence using originalism as a method of interpretation points to a broad understanding of insurrection and rebellion consistent with the language of the 14th Amendment.
The provision in question, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, prohibits individuals who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion from holding office, unless Congress grants amnesty through a two-thirds vote in each House. The article concludes that Trump falls within the original meaning of those terms and that the provision’s disqualification rule must be honored and enforced by anyone responsible for determining someone’s eligibility for office.
While the provision was initially intended to address the aftermath of the Civil War, the article argues that its language has continuing force and is applicable to the present day. The authors contend that election administrators have a duty to exclude Trump’s name from the ballot, and failing to do so may result in legal action.
The professors emphasize that their argument about Trump’s eligibility for office is separate from the question of whether he should face criminal charges for attempting to subvert the 2020 election. They assert that the decision to allow Trump to take the constitutional oath and hold constitutional power again is not a matter for a jury, but rather a question of constitutional interpretation.
This story originally appeared in the New York Times.