Lawrence: Historians’ brief teaches Supreme Court 14th Amendment’s real history
In this compelling episode of "Rachel Maddow Presents: Déjà News," a riveting discussion unfolds with Shawn Fain, Lawrence O'Donnell, Neal Katyal, and David Blight about the historical and contemporary implications of using Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to disqualify former President Donald Trump from future office. The conversation delves into a Supreme Court case poised to examine the complexities of this constitutional provision, with states showing divergences in their approach to Trump's eligibility on election ballots. The episode expertly navigates the legal landscape as it grapples with the amendment's interpretation and envisions its impact on American politics.
Amid the legal discourse, "Déjà News" also spotlights the broader political narrative, contrasting President Biden's supportive stance on labor unions with Trump's seemingly indifferent track record on workers' rights. As the experts dissect the original intent behind the 14th Amendment, the podcast draws a line connecting the past to the present—revealing the powerful resonance of historical context in today's political decisions. Listeners are given a nuanced perspective both on the potential disqualification of a former president and on the shifting alliances within the American workforce—a testament to the high stakes and complexities that shape the nation's democracy and society.
This is a preview of the Shortform summary of the Jan 31, 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
Disqualifying Trump from Office Under Section 3
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is being considered as a legal basis to potentially prevent Donald Trump from holding future office due to his alleged involvement in insurrection. The Supreme Court, historian interpretations, and their recognition in current political contexts play crucial roles in addressing this provision's applicability.
Supreme Court Case Challenging Trump's Eligibility
The Supreme Court prepares to address "Donald J. Trump versus Norma Anderson et al.", considering a Colorado Supreme Court's decision to exclude Trump from the state's ballot, while the Illinois Board of Elections declined to act, indicating a disparity in the interpretation of Section 3 and its enforcement across different jurisdictions. The central issue revolves around whether Section 3 can disqualify a person from the presidency for engaging in insurrection.
Historian Brief on 14th Amendment Intent
Prominent historians lay out the original intent of the 14th Amendment, establishing that Section 3 was designed to universally prevent individuals who partook in insurrection from holding any office, presidency included. The brief highlights the stringent view on oath violation during the post-Civil War era, reinforcing the notion that this rule was seen as a long-standing barrier to governance for those involved in rebellion, as indicated by past actions against Confederate officials.
Whether Section 3 Applies to Presidency
The Supreme Court faces the task of determining if the presidency falls under "office" as stated in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and if this section is inherently effective without further congressional action. Historical documents suggest that after the Civil War, insurrectionists were automatically banned from federal office—demonstrating that this disqualification was observed as self-executing, even persisting after general amnesties were offered to Confederates.
Biden's Support for Workers and Labor Unions
In the contemporary political landscape, President Biden's actions display a stark contrast with Trump's history regarding labor support. Biden actively demonstrates allegiance to labor unions through appearances and favorable policy initiatives, which is juxtaposed with Trump's previous disregard for workers' plights and recommendations for allowing industry failures, thus potentially underscoring Trump's disfavor in this vital political constituency.
1-Page Summary
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- Section 3 of the 14th Amendment addresses individuals who engaged in insurrection against the United States. It prohibits those individuals from holding public office unless Congress grants them a pardon. The interpretation of whether this disqualification applies to the presidency is a key legal question being debated. Historians argue that the intent behind Section 3 was to prevent insurrectionists from holding any office, including the presidency.
- The 14th Amendment's Section 3 was created after the Civil War to address the issue of former Confederates holding public office. It prohibits individuals who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the U.S. from holding office unless Congress grants them a pardon. This provision was intended to ensure loyalty to the Union and prevent those involved in the Civil War from influencing government positions.
- Trump's approach to labor unions and industry failures during his presidency was characterized by policies that some critics viewed as favoring corporations over workers. His administration rolled back regulations meant to protect workers' rights and safety, which led to concerns about the well-being of labor unions and workers. Additionally, Trump's stance on industry failures was seen as more lenient, with a focus on deregulation and tax cuts for businesses, which some argued could potentially harm workers and the economy in the long run. These actions and policies have been contrasted with President Biden's more pro-labor stance, emphasizing support for workers and labor unions through various initiatives and policies.
Counterarguments
- The interpretation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is complex, and it may not have been intended to apply to situations like the one involving Donald Trump.
- The application of Section 3 to modern circumstances may require a nuanced understanding that differs from the historical context of the post-Civil War era.
- The Supreme Court's role is to interpret the Constitution, and it may find that the presidency is not included under the term "office" as used in Section 3, or that additional legislative action is required to enforce such a disqualification.
- Historical precedent regarding the automatic banning of insurrectionists from federal office may not be directly applicable to current events or may require a more detailed examination of the specific actions and intent of the individual in question.
- President Biden's support for labor unions, while contrasting with Trump's approach, may not necessarily reflect the broader views of all workers or the effectiveness of his policies in supporting the labor market as a whole.
- Trump's approach to industry and labor issues, while criticized by some, may be defended by others who believe in less government intervention or who credit his policies with other economic successes during his administration.
Learn more
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
Disqualifying Trump from Office Under Section 3
The article examines the unfolding legal challenges and discussions around potentially barring Donald Trump from holding office based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment due to his involvement in insurrection.
Supreme Court Case Challenging Trump's Eligibility
The Supreme Court is set to hear "Donald J. Trump versus Norma Anderson et al.", a case revolving around a previous Colorado Supreme Court decision to ban Trump from the state's presidential ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Conversely, the Illinois Board of Elections opted not to ban Trump, citing a lack of authority despite evidence suggesting his engagement in insurrection as defined by the amendment.
Historian Brief on 14th Amendment Intent
According to a brief submitted by respected scholars from Yale and Harvard, including Jill Lepore, David Blight, Drew Gilpin Faust, and John Fabian Witt, the framers of the 14th Amendment designed Section 3 to prevent insurrectionists from holding office. The brief emphasizes the era's focus on oath taking, referencing the second Confiscation Act which stipulated disqualification and even death for oath violation and treason. David Blight elaborates on the drafters' intent to include all offices, including the presidency, and remarks on the Section 3's endurance for future generations.
Whether Section 3 Applies to Presidency
The question before the Supreme Court not only involves whether "office" includes the presidency but also whether Section 3 is self-executing, meaning it could disqualify candidates without further action from Congress. The historian's brief argues that Section 3 was meant to be permanent and prevent any who aided rebellion, like Jefferson Davis, from holding federal office. This section of the 14th Amendment was understood to be self-executing by thousands of Confederacy members who petitioned Congress to lift their bans on holding office.
Neal Katyal discusses the collection of briefs, poin ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
Disqualifying Trump from Office Under Section 3
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits individuals who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the U.S. from holding public office unless pardoned by a two-thirds vote of Congress. It was primarily aimed at former Confederates after the Civil War. The section is seen as self-executing, meaning it can automatically disqualify individuals without the need for further legislation. The current debate revolves around whether this section applies to the presidency and if it can be used to disqualify individuals like Donald Trump based on their involvement in insurrection.
- The Second Confiscation Act was a U.S. law passed during the Civil War in 1862. It authorized the seizure of property, including slaves, from those supporting the Confederacy. It also included provisions for the punishment of individuals who violated oaths of allegiance to the Union, with penalties such as disqualification from holding office and even death for treason. The Act aimed to weaken the Confederate cause by targeting supporters and enforcing loyalty to the Union.
- In the context of the 14th Amendment's Section 3, "self-executing" means that the disqualification of individuals from holding office due to their involvement in insurrection happens automatically without the need for additional legislation or action by Congress. This provision was designed to have immediate legal effect upon the individual's actions meeting the criteria outlined in the amendment. It is intended to be a self-operating mechanism that triggers disqualification based on the individual's conduct, without requiring further intervention by governmental bodies.
- The concept of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment being self-executing means that its provisions are automatically enforced without the need for additional legislation or action by Congress. This interpretation suggests that individuals who fall under the criteria outlined in Section 3, such as those engaged in insurrection against the United States, are automatically disqualified from holding office without further intervention. The historical context behind this interpretation stems from the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment to ensure that individuals who participated in rebellion or insurrection would be barred from positions of power within the government. This understanding is supported by historical examples of individuals being disqualified from office based on their involvement in insurrection, even after amnesties were granted.
- The amnesties in 1870 and 1872 were pardons granted to individua ...
Counterarguments
- The Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment may differ from the historians' perspective, considering the complexity of constitutional law and the potential for different legal analyses.
- The Illinois Board of Elections' decision not to ban Trump could be based on a different legal interpretation or procedural considerations that are not detailed in the text.
- The application of Section 3 to the presidency and whether it is self-executing is a matter of legal debate, and there may be legitimate constitutional arguments for why it should not be considered self-executing without explicit congressional action.
- The framers' intent regarding the 14th Amendment and Section 3 can be subject to varying interpretations, and originalist perspectives may challenge the historians' views on the framers' intentions.
- The effectiveness of Biden's support for w ...
Learn more
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
Create Summaries for anything on the web
Download the Shortform Chrome extension for your browser
