CAN THE 14TH AMENDMENT PROHIBIT ANOTHER TRUMP PRESIDENCY?
This week there has been a flurry of columns and posts discussing whether the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution could disqualify those who participated in the effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election (including the former president) from holding office.  The current conversation on this topic was spawned by a soon to-be-released article in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review written by two esteemed conservative “originalist” law professors (William Baude and Michael Paulsen).  The professors claim that Trump is prohibited from running for president under a provision of the post-Civil war 14th Amendment which bars “from state and federal office those who, having previously taken an oath of office to support the Constitution, participate in an insurrection or give support to insurrectionists.”   

Here is an article from The Atlantic written by preeminent Constitutional law scholar Lawrence Tribe and former US Court of Appeals Justice Michael Luttig and Here is a post by Heather Cox-Richardson on the subject. Here is a post by Ruth Ben-Ghiat on the subject.    For an opposing point of view, here is a column published in The Hill written by conservative legal scholar and Fox News legal commentator, Jonathan Turley; Turley contends that that January 6 was not a rebellion or an insurrection, but rather was a protest gone awry. 

In this Substack post, retired attorney and daily blogger Robert Hubbell, a progressive, questions the wisdom of deploying the Disqualification Clause of the 14th Amendment because, among other reasons, doing so would put too much authority into the hands of state election officials who could “unilaterally claim for themselves the right to bar candidates from the ballot…Entrusting direct enforcement of the Disqualification Clause to hundreds –thousands ?–of election officials with no due process limitation is a dangerous proposition that we may live to regret.”

CAN THE 14TH AMENDMENT PROHIBIT ANOTHER TRUMP PRESIDENCY?
This week there has been a flurry of columns and posts discussing whether the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution could disqualify those who participated in the effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election (including the former president) from holding office.  The current conversation on this topic was spawned by a soon to-be-released article in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review written by two esteemed conservative “originalist” law professors (William Baude and Michael Paulsen).  The professors claim that Trump is prohibited from running for president under a provision of the post-Civil war 14th Amendment which bars “from state and federal office those who, having previously taken an oath of office to support the Constitution, participate in an insurrection or give support to insurrectionists.”   

Here is an article from The Atlantic written by preeminent Constitutional law scholar Lawrence Tribe and former US Court of Appeals Justice Michael Luttig and Here is a post by Heather Cox-Richardson on the subject. Here is a post by Ruth Ben-Ghiat on the subject.    For an opposing point of view, here is a column published in The Hill written by conservative legal scholar and Fox News legal commentator, Jonathan Turley; Turley contends that that January 6 was not a rebellion or an insurrection, but rather was a protest gone awry. 

In this Substack post, retired attorney and daily blogger Robert Hubbell, a progressive, questions the wisdom of deploying the Disqualification Clause of the 14th Amendment because, among other reasons, doing so would put too much authority into the hands of state election officials who could “unilaterally claim for themselves the right to bar candidates from the ballot…Entrusting direct enforcement of the Disqualification Clause to hundreds –thousands ?–of election officials with no due process limitation is a dangerous proposition that we may live to regret.”

WHY THE GEORGIA INDICTMENT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE FEDERAL INDICTMENT
In this CNN opinion column, writer Jennifer Rodgers provides two important ways that the Georgia indictment is even more damaging to Trump than the federal indictment.  The first reason is that Georgia’s RICO law carries a mandatory minimum prison sentence of 5 years, and most of the other 40 charges in the Georgia indictment carry a mandatory sentence of one year.  Secondly, even if Trump wins the presidency, the Georgia case persists inasmuch as Trump has no power to fire Georgia state officials or to be pardoned for a state-based conviction.  “Under Georgia law, a state pardon can only be given by a state pardon board — not the governor — and only afterfive years have passed following completion of the sentence.’

THE GEORGIA INDICTMENT
At this link  (NY Times) or at this link (CNN) you can read the indictment. 
At this link (The Morning Newsletter, NY Times) you can read a summary of the indictment and many different explanations of and reactions to the charges.

More relevant than ever: WHY STATES MIGHT BEAT THE FEDS AT HOLDING TRUMP ACCOUNTABLE
in this op-ed in the LA Times, frequent America at a Crossroads guest, Rick Hasen, provides three reasons why states play a critical role in the drive to hold Trump accountable.  He writes that even if Trump is re-elected, he has no power to fire a state’s DA or to have state charges dismissed or investigations halted.  Further, state crimes are not subject to presidential pardons. As such, Hasen concludes, “To the extent that Trump needs to be held accountable and deterred from future election subversion or other crimes through prosecution, the state route is as promising, if not more so, than the federal one.”  Hasen also writes that the state prosecutions help to states focus on the democratic and election processes within the state, including the importance of vigilance in overseeing the rules related to ensuring correct electoral votes, or to assessing if there are threats posed by local election officials with access to voter machinery and voter data. 

TRUMP JANUARY 6 INDICTMENT ANALYZED
HERE IS THE FULL TEXT OF THE INDICTMENT

In this Washington Post column, Jennifer Rubin analyzes yesterday’s historic indictment of the former President on charges related to January 6.  Rubin commends special counsel Jack Smith as well as the House January 6 committee; the former for his efficiency in bringing a powerful and narrowly tailored January 6 related indictment within an eight month time period, and the latter for having gathered the facts and evidence to give the country a coherent view of the coup.  Due to the work of the House committee, writes Rubin, the foundation was laid for the work of the special counsel. 

TRUMP v. BIDEN POLL
In this NY Times (Morning newsletter) column David Leonhardt addresses the recent Times poll which shows Biden and Trump in a dead heat, each with 43% of the vote. Leonhardt’s column focuses on the 14% of respondents who declined to choose either Biden or Trump.  “Perhaps the most notable characteristic of [the decline to choose] voters is that they are highly critical of Trump.  By defnition they are also unenthusiastic about Biden.  But, they are considerably less happy with Trump” writes Leonhardt. In the column, Leonhardt profiles these “undecided” voters.  His conclusion is that the race is too close to call, and is largely dependent upon the how undecided voters vote in swing states like Arizona, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.  He reminds his readers of Hilary’s loss to Trump in 2016 in which undecided voters in swing states voted more heavily for Trump while Hillary won landslides on the coasts. 

WARNING: NO LABELS COULD LEAD TO DISASTROUS RESULT
This CNN op-ed, entitled, Why a Third Party 2024 Presidential Ticket is a Dangerous Gamble, the writer, CNN political analyst and anchor John Avlon, cited a recent Gallup poll which stunningly reports that the total number of voters who declare themselves to be “independent” (49%) is equal to the number who self-declare as Democrats and Republicans combined.  Avlon profiles and analyzes the voting patterns of independent voters, whom he concludes to be predominantly centrists; of late, claims Avlon, it is the independent voters who determine the outcome of many American elections.  Avlon then explains that despite the fact that there is a constructive role for No Labels to play in government and politics, under the current facts, it would be disastrous for No Labels (which he helped form in 2010 though he is no longer involved) to put forth a third party candidate in a Trump v Biden election.   He writes: “[T]he Electoral College mathematics of presidential elections suggest that a key way a figure like Trump could be reelected is if a third party candidate plays spoiler.  Even Republican senators are now warning that a No Labels ticket led by Manchin would hurt Biden and help Trump.  That is an extraordinarily reckless risk at this particular time in our history.”  Independent voters disdain polarization, concludes Avlon, “and even the possibility of a Trump reelection promises to pour gasoline on the hyper-partisan fires that threaten to burn down our republic.”