Lawrence: Trump lawyers inventing an immunity argument they hope SCOTUS can accept
In this riveting installment of "Rachel Maddow Presents: Déjà News," with contributions from legal luminaries such as Lawrence O'Donnell, Joyce Vance, Harry Lippmann, Shenna Bellows, Lawrence Tribe, and historian David Blight, the team delves into the critical legal challenges former President Donald Trump faces under the 14th Amendment. Amidst the political firestorm surrounding Trump’s attempt to return to the presidential ballot, the speakers unpack the historical foundations and modern implications of Section 3, focusing on its origin to keep insurrectionists out of office and its pertinence to the allegations stemming from January 6, 2021.
Further exploring the complex legal landscape, the team dissects the arguments made by Trump's lawyers who are trying to navigate his candidacy through the intricacies of the Maine ballot law and the assertions of immunity they hope to take to the Supreme Court. Simultaneously, the episode draws a parallel to Senator Menendez's bribery case, revealing the dynamics of legal integrity and power abuse in government. This comparison not only deepens the conversation but also underlines the ongoing struggle to maintain ethical governance in the face of personal and political ambitions.
This is a preview of the Shortform summary of the Jan 3, 2024 episode of the Rachel Maddow Presents: Déjà News
Sign up for Shortform to access the whole episode summary along with additional materials like counterarguments and context.
1-Page Summary
Donald Trump's 14th Amendment Legal Challenges
Background and context behind Section 3 banning Trump from ballots
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was created to protect the integrity of democracy by prohibiting those who have engaged in insurrection from holding office. Historically, this provision aimed to prevent former Confederates from returning to governmental positions and was part of a broader effort to federalize the Bill of Rights. The context of this provision becomes relevant for Donald Trump due to his alleged involvement in the events of January 6, 2021, with particular focus on whether his actions constitute an insurrection that disqualifies him from holding office. The debates around the time of drafting the amendment, particularly those involving its author John Bingham, are indicative of its intent to ensure oath breakers are prevented from governing.
Analysis of court appeals seeking to get Trump on ballots
Secretary of State Bellows of Maine barred Trump from the presidential ballot, invoking the state's law and his alleged insurrectionist involvement, which Trump’s legal team challenges. They argue the 14th Amendment’s disqualification applies only post-election and does not prevent candidacy. Trump's attorney in Maine contends the Secretary of State should perform clerical tasks rather than interpret Section 3. Despite the suspension of Bellows' decision pending appeal, experts such as Tribe argue there is no legal justification for the decision to be overturned, as administrative hearings and legal trials are distinctly different, and the main question remains whether Trump disqualified himself through alleged insurrection.
Discussion of bribery charges faced by Senator Menendez
Senator Menendez's legal troubles run parallel to Trump's challenges, with allegations of bribery highlighting issues of legal integrity and the abuse of power. Accused of influencing Qatar in favor of a New Jersey businessman for personal gain, Menendez's situation is complex due to his influential committee position and family involvement. Key evidence includes gold bars linked to the alleged bribes, casting a shadow over his legal defense and adding to the narrative of power misuse within the highest levels of government.
1-Page Summary
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- Section 3 of the 14th Amendment prohibits individuals who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States from holding public office. It was originally intended to prevent former Confederates from rejoining the government after the Civil War. The provision focuses on loyalty to the Constitution and aims to safeguard the integrity of the democratic process by disqualifying those who have actively worked against the nation through insurrection. In the context of recent events, such as the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot, the application of this section has become a subject of legal debate and scrutiny.
- The connection between the 14th Amendment and the events of January 6, 2021, lies in the provision of Section 3, which was historically created to prevent individuals who engaged in insurrection from holding office. The debates around the drafting of the 14th Amendment, particularly regarding oath breakers and insurrection, provide context for assessing whether actions like those on January 6, 2021, could disqualify someone from office. This connection is relevant in discussions about whether Donald Trump's alleged involvement in the events of January 6, 2021, could trigger the disqualification outlined in the 14th Amendment.
- The legal debate around Trump's disqualification from the ballot centers on interpreting the 14th Amendment's Section 3, which bars individuals engaged in insurrection from holding office. Trump's legal team argues that this disqualification should apply post-election and not to candidacy, while the Secretary of State of Maine contends otherwise. The key question is whether Trump's alleged involvement in the events of January 6, 2021, constitutes an insurrection that disqualifies him from running for office.
- Secretary of State Bellows of Maine played a crucial role in barring Trump from the ballot by invoking the state's law and citing Trump's alleged involvement in the insurrection. Trump's legal team challenged this decision, arguing that the 14th Amendment's disqualification should only apply post-election and not prevent his candidacy. The dispute centers on whether Bellows overstepped his authority in interpreting and applying Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in this context.
- The 14th Amendment's Section 3 disqualifies individuals who have engaged in insurrection from holding office. The interpretation of this provision in relation to Donald Trump's alleged involvement in the events of January 6, 2021, is a subject of legal debate. The key question revolves around whether Trump's actions meet the criteria of insurrection as outlined in the amendment. Trump's legal challenges focus on the timing of the disqualification and the extent to which it applies to his candidacy.
- Senator Menendez faces bribery allegations related to influencing Qatar for a New Jersey businessman's benefit. The accusations suggest he used his position for personal gain, raising concerns about ethical conduct in government. The involvement of gold bars as alleged bribes adds a significant dimension to the case. The situation underscores the potential misuse of power at the highest levels of government.
Counterarguments
- The application of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to modern circumstances is subject to legal interpretation, and some may argue that its original intent does not directly apply to contemporary political figures or events.
- There is a legal debate over whether the actions of January 6, 2021, meet the constitutional definition of "insurrection," and some legal scholars may argue that this term has a specific legal meaning that may not encompass the events of that day.
- Trump's legal team's argument that the 14th Amendment's disqualification applies only post-election could be supported by a strict reading of the text, suggesting that candidacy itself is not directly addressed by the amendment.
- The role of the Secretary of State in interpreting and applying election law can be debated, with some arguing that election officials have a duty to uphold the constitutionality of candidates and others asserting that their role should be more administrative.
- The assertion by experts like Tribe that there is no legal justification for overturning the decision to bar Trump from the ballot is not universally accepted, and other legal experts may have differing interpretations of the law and the powers of state officials.
- The parallel drawn between Trump's legal challenges and Senator Menendez's bribery charges could be criticized as conflating two legally distinct issues, with some arguing that each case should be considered on its own merits.
- The inclusion of Senator Menendez's legal troubles in the discussion may be seen as an attempt to draw a broader narrative of corruption that some might argue unfairly biases the reader against individuals who have not been convicted of any crimes.
Learn more
Related Shortform Content
EP: Foreseeable Consequences - Donald Trump’s team and the U.S. government
Andrew Weissmann, Mary McCord
GOP Presidential Debate Recap | PBD Podcast | Ep. 325
Patrick Bet-David, Vincent Oshana, Adam Sosnick, Vivek Ramaswamy, Tom Ellsworth
EP: Of Presidents & Kings
Andrew Weissmann, Mary McCord, Trevor Morrison
Get access to the context and additional materials
Donald Trump's 14th Amendment Legal Challenges
Bruce Hepler has taken legal action to challenge the decision by Maine Secretary of State Chen Nabelos to bar Donald Trump from the presidential ballot in Maine, seeking to ensure Trump’s name appears on the Republican presidential primary ballot.
Background and context behind Section 3 banning Trump from ballots
Tribe and Blight discuss the historical and legal context of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, designed to protect democracy from those who would seek to threaten it. Initially part of a broader omnibus bill in 1866, Section 3 aimed at preventing the return of Confederate governance and the principles of racial slavery. It can potentially ban individuals who have engaged in insurrection from holding office, which is pertinent to Trump’s situation regarding the January 6, 2021, incident. The radical Republicans who crafted the amendment wanted to ensure that those who broke their oath by rebelling could not hold office again.
The 14th Amendment was considered a means to federalize the Bill of Rights, with Section 3 central to the notion of upholding one's oath to the Union. Blight suggests looking at the historical debates and contributions of John Bingham, a key author of the 14th Amendment, to understand its original intent.
Analysis of court appeals seeking to get Trump on ballots
Secretary of State Bellows issued a precise 34-page decision invoking Maine law to bar Trump from the ballot, citing his engagement in insurrection. Meanwhile, Trump's legal filing in Maine claims that the 14th Amendment barred individuals from holding office only after election or appointment, not from running for office or being elected. O'Donnell reports Trump's new Maine lawyer asserts that the Secretary of State's authority was only for clerical checks on ballot applications, not to consider challenges under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Tribe emphasizes that Trump's denials of fair process are groundless, distinguishing between an administrative hearing and a criminal or civil trial. T ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
Donald Trump's 14th Amendment Legal Challenges
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- Donald Trump faced legal challenges related to the 14th Amendment's Section 3, which can potentially bar individuals who have engaged in insurrection from holding office. The challenges revolve around whether Trump's actions surrounding the January 6, 2021 incident qualify as insurrection and if this disqualifies him from appearing on the ballot. Trump's legal team argued that the 14th Amendment only prohibits individuals from holding office after election or appointment, not from running for office. The debate centers on the interpretation of the historical context and original intent of the 14th Amendment's Section 3.
- Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was created to prevent former Confederates from holding office after the Civil War. It prohibits individuals who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the U.S. from holding public office unless pardoned by Congress. This section aimed to safeguard the integrity of the government and ensure loyalty to the Union. It has been invoked in contemporary discussions regarding the eligibility of individuals involved in actions like the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot.
- Trump's lawyer in Maine argued that the 14th Amendment does not prevent individuals from running for office or being elected, only from holding office after election or appointment. The lawyer contended that the Secretary of State's authority was limited to clerical checks on ballot applications, not to consider challenges under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The focus of the argument was on whether Trump disqualified himself by engaging in insurrection, rather than being barred from the ballot outright. The lawyer's position aimed to differentiate between the timing of disqualification under the 14th Amendment and the process of running for office.
- In legal proceedings, administrative hearings are typically non-judicial processes where government agencies resolve disputes or make decisions based on regulations. They are more informal than traditi ...
Counterarguments
- The application of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to Trump's situation may be seen as a legal stretch, given that it was originally intended to address the post-Civil War era and has rarely been invoked since.
- There could be a debate over what constitutes "engagement in insurrection" and whether Trump's actions meet that threshold.
- The interpretation of the 14th Amendment's original intent could be contested, with some arguing that its application should evolve with the times.
- Trump's legal team might argue that barring a candidate from running for office based on alleged actions without a criminal conviction undermines the democratic process and the right of the people to choose their leaders.
- The authority of a Secretary of State to interpret and apply constitutional provisions like Section 3 of the 14th Amendment could be challenged as exceeding the scope of their administrative duties.
- The argument that the Secretary of State's role is limited to clerical checks could be supported by a strict reading of state law, suggesting that any decision regarding a candidate's qualifications should be made by a court.
- The suspension of Bellows' decision pending appeal could be seen as a recognition of the complexity of the legal issues involved and the potential for a ...
Learn more
Related Shortform Content
EP: Foreseeable Consequences - Donald Trump’s team and the U.S. government
Andrew Weissmann, Mary McCord
GOP Presidential Debate Recap | PBD Podcast | Ep. 325
Patrick Bet-David, Vincent Oshana, Adam Sosnick, Vivek Ramaswamy, Tom Ellsworth
EP: Of Presidents & Kings
Andrew Weissmann, Mary McCord, Trevor Morrison
Get access to the context and additional materials
Create Summaries for anything on the web
Download the Shortform Chrome extension for your browser
