Two law professors active in the Federalist Society wrote that the original meaning of the 14th Amendment makes Donald Trump ineligible to hold government office.
These constitutional scholars dug into the original meaning of the 14th amendment and concluded that Trump easily meets the bar for having “engaged in” the Jan 6th insurrection, thereby disqualifying him from holding office.
I believe it all comes down to the term “engaged in”. Some say he didn’t because he was not literally storming the capital with the rioters. These two law professors are arguing (in a peer reviewed law journal) that the original intent of that term includes all the stuff Trump did.
Section 3. 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.
(Emphasis naturally not in the original.)
It depends on if you can claim they gave aid or comfort to the people storming the capitol. Many of the justices might be questionable for other reasons, but unless they were actively there or publicly supportive of it, I don’t think they’d qualify. Plus, who’s going to rule on it, the other justices?
That being said, in 2022, there was a case of a politician in New Mexico being barred from public office for life for being supportive of Jan 6th. Apparently it’s the first time this has happened since 1869 (and remained upheld).
The tldr here is this:
These constitutional scholars dug into the original meaning of the 14th amendment and concluded that Trump easily meets the bar for having “engaged in” the Jan 6th insurrection, thereby disqualifying him from holding office.
I believe it all comes down to the term “engaged in”. Some say he didn’t because he was not literally storming the capital with the rioters. These two law professors are arguing (in a peer reviewed law journal) that the original intent of that term includes all the stuff Trump did.
What does the 14th amendment say about how it should be applied if half of the supreme court judges are co-conspirators?
(Emphasis naturally not in the original.)
It depends on if you can claim they gave aid or comfort to the people storming the capitol. Many of the justices might be questionable for other reasons, but unless they were actively there or publicly supportive of it, I don’t think they’d qualify. Plus, who’s going to rule on it, the other justices?
That being said, in 2022, there was a case of a politician in New Mexico being barred from public office for life for being supportive of Jan 6th. Apparently it’s the first time this has happened since 1869 (and remained upheld).