The Supreme Court weighs Donald Trump’s ballot eligibility
In the latest episode of "Rachel Maddow Presents: Déjà News," legal luminaries including Lawrence O'Donnell, Lawrence Tribe, and Neal Katyal engage in a deep dive into the constitutionality of employing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in the context of Donald Trump's eligibility for office. Highlighting a historical perspective fueled by insights from Justice Katanji Brown Jackson and historians like David Blight, the discussion scrutinizes whether Trump's actions could classify as insurrection—rendering him ineligible for public office under the Amendment designed to keep disruptors of the U.S. political sphere at bay.
This poignant roundtable also explores the unprecedented suggestion of reviving a rarely invoked constitutional provision after a century and a half, considering alternate routes such as direct federal insurrection charges against Trump. As the conversation shifts to the possible ramifications of the Supreme Court avoiding a clear stance on Section 3, experts like Brett Kavanaugh and Andrew Weissmann weigh in on the potential risks to the rule of law and democratic values established in the Constitution. With a blend of legal expertise and historical context, "Rachel Maddow Presents: Déjà News" delivers a thought-provoking exploration of legal and ethical boundaries in today's politically charged environment.
This is a preview of the Shortform summary of the Feb 9, 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
The constitutionality and implications of using Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to bar Trump from office
Lawrence O'Donnell, Lawrence Tribe, Jason Murray, and other legal experts consider employing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to disqualify Donald Trump from holding office. They argue that Trump's actions in relation to the January 6th events could be interpreted as insurrection, fitting the framers' intent of the Amendment. This intent, traced back to the Amendment's origins by Justice Katanji Brown Jackson, aimed to prevent those who disrupt the U.S. political structure from wielding power, specifically targeting Confederate insurrectionists. Nonetheless, the application of this provision raises procedural issues such as states like Colorado unilaterally barring candidates and the potential risks of states having excessive influence over national elections, as discussed by Neal Katyal and Chief Justice John Roberts. They caution against a fragmented election process, while Tribe highlights that states have constitutionally held responsibilities in running elections, including enforcing Section 3, which aligns with the Electoral College system.
Alternatives to Section 3, such as federal charges for insurrection
The experts emphasize the unusual resurgence of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment after 150 years of dormancy, following an event like January 6th. Laurence Tribe and Neal Katyal remind that Congress can lift the disqualification imposed by Section 3, allowing for a person deemed as an insurrectionist to potentially regain the capability to hold office. With regard to Trump, the discussion pivots to whether he could face federal insurrection charges. Brett Kavanaugh and Andrew Weissmann propose that conviction under federal charges would clarify disqualification from office, offering a decisive measure for addressing constitutional eligibility.
Risks of the Supreme Court declining to apply Section 3
O'Donnell, Blight, and Tribe illuminate the risks if the Supreme Court refrains from applying Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. They express concern that non-application could tantamount to erasing the provision from the Constitution and setting a precedent that obviates accountability for insurrectionists. They assert that avoiding a decision on Trump's status as an insurrectionist could undermine the rule of law, weakening the enforcement of Section 3 and the Amendment's role as a bulwark for democratic values. Katyal and Blight stress that dismissing the Amendment's clear intent would erode faith in the legal system and challenge whether the United States adheres to being a nation ruled by laws.
1-Page Summary
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits individuals who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States from holding public office unless Congress grants them a pardon. This provision was originally intended to prevent former Confederate officials and military leaders from reentering positions of power after the Civil War. The application of this section in modern times, such as in the case of former President Donald Trump, involves interpreting whether an individual's actions meet the criteria of insurrection as outlined in the Amendment. The decision to disqualify someone under Section 3 is significant as it directly impacts their eligibility to hold federal or state office.
- The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War to address citizenship rights and equal protection under the law for all individuals in the United States. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment specifically targeted former Confederates who engaged in insurrection against the Union, aiming to prevent them from holding public office. The framers intended to ensure that those who actively worked against the government during the Civil War were not able to participate in the political process post-war. This historical context underscores the Amendment's focus on loyalty to the United States and the consequences for those who sought to undermine its authority.
- The potential procedural issues related to states barring candidates and their influence on national elections stem from concerns about individual states independently disqualifying candidates based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. This could lead to inconsistencies in the application of disqualification criteria across states, potentially impacting the fairness and uniformity of national elections. Critics worry that such actions could give disproportionate power to states in determining the eligibility of candidates for federal office, raising questions about the balance of state and federal authority in the electoral process. The debate underscores the delicate balance between state autonomy in election administration and the need for consistent national standards to uphold the integrity of the electoral system.
- If the Supreme Court chooses not to apply Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, it could lead to a situation where individuals like Donald Trump, accused of inciting insurrection, might not face disqualification from holding office based on that provision. This could set a precedent that weakens the accountability for those involved in similar actions in the future. It may also raise questions about the enforcement of the Amendment's provisions and the overall rule of law in the context of addressing insurrectionist behavior.
- Eroding faith in the legal system can lead to a lack of trust in the fairness and effectiveness of laws and institutions. It can undermine the belief that justice will be served impartially and consistently. A nation committed to being ruled by laws prioritizes the adherence to legal principles and the equal application of laws to all individuals, regardless of their status or influence. This commitment is essential for upholding democracy, ensuring accountability, and maintaining social order.
Counterarguments
- The interpretation of what constitutes "insurrection" under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is subject to legal debate, and some may argue that Trump's actions do not meet this threshold.
- The framers' intent behind the 14th Amendment, while historically grounded in the context of the Civil War, may not directly apply to contemporary political disputes or actions.
- Concerns about states' influence on national elections could be countered by the argument that the Constitution grants states the power to manage elections, and this includes the authority to enforce federal constitutional provisions.
- The possibility of Congress lifting disqualification under Section 3 could be criticized as a political mechanism that could undermine the objective legal standards intended by the Amendment.
- Pursuing federal charges for insurrection is a complex legal process that requires a high burden of proof, and some may argue that it is not appropriate or feasible in this context.
- The Supreme Court's reluctance to apply Section 3 may be defended on the grounds of judicial restraint and the avoidance of entanglement in what could be seen as a political question.
- The assertion that non-application of Section 3 undermines accountability could be met with the counterargument that there are other legal and electoral mechanisms to hold officials accountable.
- The idea that avoiding a decision on Trump's status as an insurrectionist weakens democratic values could be countered by the principle that individuals are entitled to a presumption of innocence and due process.
- The claim that dismissing the Amendment's intent erodes faith in the legal system could be challenged by the view that the legal system must adapt to changing circumstances and interpretations of the law.
Learn more
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
The constitutionality and implications of using Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to bar Trump from office
Lawrence O'Donnell, alongside prominent attorneys and scholars, delves into the complexities and precedents related to employing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in contemporary politics, particularly regarding the potential barring of Donald Trump from office.
Whether Trump's actions constitute "insurrection" under Section 3
Attorney Jason Murray notes the historical dormancy of Section 3, dormant due to lack of similar events to January 6th since Reconstruction, highlighting it as a tool for protecting democracy. Lawrence Tribe elucidates Section 3's purpose, which is to prevent individuals who try to disrupt the peaceful transition of power from holding office. He suggests charging Trump under 18 U.S. Code Section 2383 for insurrection, noting that the Supreme Court would need to determine whether the events meet the criteria of an insurrection.
Additionally, Murray and Tribe argue that Trump's actions aimed at preventing a fair presidential election outcome fit the framers' intent behind Section 3. Jason Murray highlighted Trump's statements at a rally as central to the incitement case. Lawrence O'Donnell implicitly refers to Virginia Thomas being with Trump's entourage during the rally's controversial directives. Tribe expands on this by suggesting the violent mob incentivized by Trump could be seen as evidence of insurrection.
The historical context and original intent of Section 3
Justice Katanji Brown Jackson points to the Amendment's history, suggesting its intent to prevent Confederate insurrectionists from infiltrating states' political structures.
David Blight reveals the justices' timidity regarding Section 3's usage, fearing its significant power and the possibility of its effective erasure through judicial reluctance.
Tribe asserts that Trump's actions could be considered exactly what the architects of the 14th Amendment intended to address with Section 3.
Procedural issues with Colorado acting unilaterally to bar Trump from the ballot
Neal Katyal discusses the risks and implications of affirming or rejecting the decision by the Colorado Supreme Court, emphasizing that the 14th Amendment aimed to prevent insurrectionists from holding high office.
Risk of individual states having too much power over national elections
Chief Justice John Roberts and Katyal express concerns that upholding Colorado's position c ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
The constitutionality and implications of using Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to bar Trump from office
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- Section 3 of the 14th Amendment deals with barring individuals from holding public office if they have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States. It was originally intended to prevent former Confederates from holding office after the Civil War. The section has been historically dormant but has gained attention in recent times due to discussions about its potential application to prevent certain individuals, like Donald Trump, from seeking or holding office. The interpretation and application of Section 3 involve legal complexities and debates about its relevance in modern politics.
- The historical context of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is rooted in the aftermath of the Civil War and the Reconstruction era. It was specifically included to address concerns about former Confederate officials and supporters holding positions of power in government. The intent was to prevent those who had engaged in insurrection against the United States during the Civil War from later holding public office. This historical background informs the interpretation and application of Section 3 in contemporary discussions about barring individuals from office due to their actions related to insurrection or rebellion.
- The procedural issues with Colorado acting unilaterally to bar Trump from the ballot revolve around the state's authority to interpret and enforce federal laws like the 14th Amendment's Section 3. This raises questions about the balance of power between states and the federal government in regulating elections and determining eligibility for office. It also touches on the potential implications of individual states making decisions that could impact national politics and elections. The debate highlights the complexities of how states navigate their roles within the broader framework of federal law and governance.
- Concerns about states having too much power over national elections stem from the fear that individual states could disproportionately influence the outcome of federal elections, potentially leading to a fragmented and chaotic electoral process. This issue raises questions about the balance of power between the states and the federal government in the context of elections, highlighting the need for a cohesive and fai ...
Counterarguments
- The interpretation of what constitutes "insurrection" under Section 3 is subject to legal debate, and some may argue that Trump's actions do not meet the historical or legal standard for insurrection.
- The intent behind Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, while clear in its historical context, may be argued as not directly applicable to modern circumstances or to the actions of a president.
- The use of Section 3 could be seen as a partisan tool if not applied uniformly and could set a precedent for future political retribution.
- The judiciary's hesitance to employ Section 3 may be rooted in a cautious approach to constitutional interpretation and the avoidance of judicial overreach.
- There is a potential constitutional conflict between a state's right to determine its own election processes and the uniformity needed for federal elections.
- The argument that states have significant control over elections might overlook the need for national standards to ensure f ...
Learn more
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
Alternatives to Section 3, such as federal charges for insurrection
In the ongoing debate about the disqualification from office for those who engage in insurrection, legal experts discuss alternative approaches to addressing this issue, considering historical context and constitutional mechanisms.
Section 3 left "dormant" for 150 years because unprecedented situation
Jason Murray observes that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has been dormant for 150 years, which reflects the fact that the United States had not been confronted with an event like the January 6 insurrection since the era of Reconstruction. The section's re-emergence is considered a response to a historically unprecedented situation.
Congress could lift Section 3 disability, allowing flexibility
Laurence Tribe raises the point that Congress holds the power to lift the disqualification imposed by Section 3. This would allow someone who is classified as an insurrectionist by the Amendment to run for office if Congress so decides.
Furthermore, Neal Katyal elaborates that under the 14th Amendment, Congress has the explicit authority to remove the disability from individuals who have been labeled as insurrectionists, thereby granting them eligibility to run fo ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
Alternatives to Section 3, such as federal charges for insurrection
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution addresses the issue of individuals who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the government. It states that such individuals are disqualified from holding public office unless Congress decides to remove this disqualification by a two-thirds vote. This provision was primarily aimed at former Confederates after the Civil War and has been rarely invoked in modern times. The recent discussions around Section 3 have emerged in response to the January 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, prompting a reexamination of its relevance and application in contemporary political contexts.
- Lifting the disqualification imposed by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment means removing the restriction that prevents individuals labeled as insurrectionists from holding public office. Congress has the authority to lift this disqualification, allowing those affected to run for office again if Congress decides to do so. This process provides flexibility in addressing the issue of disqualification for engaging in insurrection. It essentially grants Congress the power to decide whether someone previously disqualified under Section 3 can be eligible for public office once more.
- To remove the disability from individuals labeled as insurrectionists under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, Congress has the explicit authority to lift this disqualification. This means that Congress can decide to overturn the ban on holding public office for those who have been classified as insurrectionists. By exercising this power, Congress can grant these individuals the eligibility to run for public office once again. This process allows for flexibility in addressing the dis ...
Counterarguments
- Section 3 of the 14th Amendment may not have been used frequently, but its dormancy does not necessarily mean it was irrelevant or unnecessary; it may have served as a deterrent or simply not been applicable in other historical contexts.
- The uniqueness of the January 6 insurrection is debatable; some might argue that other events in U.S. history could have warranted the invocation of Section 3 but were handled differently due to the political climate or interpretations of the law at the time.
- The power of Congress to lift disqualifications under Section 3 could be seen as a potential check on the balance of power, as it allows the legislative branch to override constitutional provisions meant to safeguard against insurrectionists holding office.
- The ability of Congress to remove the disability from individuals could be criticized for potentially allowing partisan interests to influence decisions on who is eligible to run for office, undermining the intent of the 14th Amendment.
- The idea that charging and convicting ...
Learn more
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
Risks of the Supreme Court declining to apply Section 3
Discussions among legal experts highlight the risks involved if the Supreme Court chooses not to apply Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, particularly regarding the accountability of insurrectionists and the integrity of the rule of law.
Potential to essentially erase Section 3 from the 14th Amendment
Legal commentators, including Lawrence O'Donnell and historian David Blight, warn that failure to use or consider Section 3 could essentially remove it from functional law. O'Donnell, referencing concerns by Chief Justice John Roberts, expresses worry about the lack of precedent for using Section 3, which might lead the Supreme Court to disregard it. Blight emphasizes that if Section 3 is not applied, it may as well be erased from the 14th Amendment, questioning its future functionality.
Laurence Tribe echoes these concerns, suggesting that if the case involving former President Trump's qualification for office is not adequately addressed now due to Trump potentially running for office again, the issue of his disqualification as an insurrectionist will recur, which is exactly what Section 3 seeks to prevent. He implies that not addressing it now could risk erasing Section 3’s impact and be viewed as an anti-democratic act.
Failure to hold insurrectionists accountable would undermine rule of law
O'Donnell implies that a failure to apply Section 3 could set a dangerous precedent of not holding insurrectionists accountable, thus undermining the rule of law. Similarly, Tribe points out that if the court avoids deciding on Trump's status as an insurrectionist or whether the presidency is covered by Section 3 on procedural grounds, it could leave significant questions open, risking the relevance and enforcement of Section 3 in the future.
Furthermore, Neal Katyal voices concerns that by not applying Section 3, the Supreme Court risks treating the 14th Amendment lightly, potentially seeing it as a document with loop ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
Risks of the Supreme Court declining to apply Section 3
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- Section 3 of the 14th Amendment deals with the issue of individuals who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States. It prohibits those who have taken part in such activities from holding public office unless Congress grants them a pardon. This section was primarily aimed at addressing the aftermath of the Civil War and ensuring that those who had supported the Confederacy could not easily return to positions of power. The application of Section 3 in contemporary contexts, such as the potential disqualification of individuals involved in the January 6 insurrection, raises questions about its interpretation and enforcement in modern times.
- Section 3 of the 14th Amendment addresses the issue of insurrectionists' accountability by prohibiting individuals who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States from holding public office unless Congress grants them a pardon. This provision was primarily aimed at preventing former Confederates from re-entering government positions after the Civil War. The accountability aspect comes into play when determining whether individuals, like former President Trump, who are accused of inciting or supporting insurrection, should be disqualified from holding office under Section 3. Failure to apply Section 3 in such cases could raise concerns about upholding the rule of law and the democratic values enshrined in the 14th Amendment.
- The original intent of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, was to grant citizenship and equal protection under the law to formerly enslaved individuals and ensure their rights were safeguarded. Additionally, it aimed to address issues related to the Civil War and protect the civil rights of all Americans, regardless of race. The amendment sought to provide a constitutional basis for the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and enshrine principles of due process and equal protection into the Constitution. It was a ke ...
Counterarguments
- The Supreme Court must balance the application of Section 3 with the potential for political misuse, ensuring that it is not weaponized against political opponents.
- The rule of law also includes the protection of individual rights, including the right to due process and a fair hearing, which could be compromised by a broad or unchecked application of Section 3.
- Precedent is important in legal decisions, and the lack of precedent for using Section 3 may warrant a cautious approach to avoid unintended consequences.
- The Supreme Court may legitimately find procedural or jurisdictional issues that prevent them from ruling on the application of Section 3, which does not necessarily undermine the rule of law.
- The interpretation of the 14th Amendment, like all constitutional provisions, can evolve over time, and what may seem like treating it lightly could be a reflection of changing legal and societal contexts.
- The original intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment may not be entirely clear or applicable to modern circumstances, neces ...
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
