posner24_Erik McGregorLightRocket via Getty Images_trumpprison

Politics

Banindo Trump

Sep 15, 2023 Eric Posner

CHICAGO – Está em curso uma nova ação legal para impedir que Donald Trump retome a presidência no próximo ano. Seus apoiadores baseiam-se na Seção Três da Décima Quarta Emenda da Constituição dos EUA, que exclui do cargo qualquer pessoa que tenha “se envolvido em insurreição ou rebelião… ou prestado ajuda ou conforto aos inimigos” dos Estados Unidos.

Inúmeras ações judiciais têm sido movidas argumentando que a participação de Trump na insurreição de 6 de janeiro de 2021 – por si só ou como parte de um esforço maior para anular as eleições de 2020 – o desqualifica. Poderia uma disposição constitucional adotada em 1868 realmente salvar a democracia americana em 2024?

A Seção Três já foi usada com sucesso para destituir do cargo um comissário do condado do Novo México chamado Couy Griffin, organizador do “Cowboys for Trump”, que ajudou a reunir membros da multidão que invadiu o Capitólio em 6 de janeiro. Mas o esforço para remover Trump das urnas recebeu apoio adicional de um recente artigo de dois ilustres professores de direito constitucional, William Baude, da Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de Chicago, e Michael Stokes Paulsen, da Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de St Thomas, que argumentam que a Seção Três realmente se aplica.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 4 Comments on this article

Alan Rhodes Sep 17, 2023

Were the current Supreme Court to rule on this matter in a way consistent with their Second Amendment rulings, which indeed did "disregard the utterly different context", the far right majority in those rulings would be bound to keep Trump from running. Of course no ever accused the far right majority of being consistent.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
ger hardy Sep 17, 2023

If you're going to invoke the 14th Amendment Section 3 and prevent Trump from running again then I would argue that you're going to have to prove that:

1) He had previous knowledge of it and/or unequivocally actively encouraged it once it began.

2) It was indeed an insurrection rather than a riot ie a genuine attempt to overthrow the US government by a few hundred unarmed, disorganised individuals.

3) That there was NO prior knowledge by any of the security services of what might unfold that day and nor were any present in any significant numbers over and above what might normally be expected for such gathering.

4) None of said security services were involved in any way shape or form in helping to further incite the J6 crowd.

There might also an argument to be made that Trump, rightly or wrongly genuinely believing the 2020 election to have been stolen, was engaged in an act of defending the US Constitution not defiling it.
- Mark St. Angelo Sep 19, 2023
  
  The relatively sparse case law doesn’t support your contention that all 4 items you list would have to be proven. However, there is no doubt that it would have to be proven that what occurred meets the definition of “insurrection.”
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Theodore D'Afflisio Sep 18, 2023
  
  While it sounds reasonable, your particular set of requirements would make it impossible to prosecute a case. Let's take them in order:
  1. Previous knowledge - this is up for grabs. The Willard War Room, the Chief of Staff's presence there along with his personal lawyer Giuliani, his personal long-time friend Roger Stone suggests lots of dots, many of which might well be linked. Right now it is suspicious but up for grabs.
  2. Word play: there were armed, highly organized groups involved with their own stated goal of 'taking back the government' - January 6 was neither a tourist visit nor a peaceful protest run amok or do you like the erstwhile Governor of Florida not have a TV where you could see for yourself?
  3/4 can be handled together as they are irrelevant to the question of the TFG's intent or purpose. Whether they knew or didn't know is immaterial to what transpired, which did not depend on their foreknowledge, unless you are implying that it was really the security agencies that instigated the events of that day. That really beggars the imagination.
  
  That said one of the authors of the paper has already changed his mind after reading comments in the Wall Street Journal based on a contrasting report, ironically the same length of his co-authored argument that came to the opposite conclusion about the self-executing nature of Section 3.
  
  Personally, I have my own reservations about using this Section and believe the ballot box will be a more effective means of deciding this question. Unlike several members of the GOP , I'm not afraid of ballots and do not believe that bullets will be necessary. Call me a cockeyed optimist and color me blue. I still trust in the wisdom of the American people.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/zHh1my7pt

Email required

Password required Remember me?

Facebook

Microsoft

Twitter

Banindo Trump

Subscribe to PS Digital

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

Banindo Trump

Subscribe to PS Digital

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification