Podcast | Should President Trump Be Allowed on the 2024 Ballot?

Подписаться 49 тыс.

Просмотров 1,6 тыс.

50% 1

Last month, the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine Secretary of State determined that President Trump “engaged in an insurrection” after taking an oath to uphold the Constitution and that he is therefore disqualified from serving as president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. In this episode, professors Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law Houston and Gerard Magliocca of the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law dive into the meaning and purpose of Section 3 and the arguments for and against Trump’s eligibility to run for a second term this fall. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.

Опубликовано:

11 янв 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 25

@normarojo5834 4 месяца назад

Interesting. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has to do with respecting of the Constitution so everyone that takes the oath is an officer.

@rebeccacanales 4 месяца назад

Whether the president is an officer or not is inconsequential and therefore moot because the operating phrase is not "any officer" but "any person". Not everyone who takes an oath to defend the Constitution is an officer. But as stated, that doesn't matter as the clause applies to any and all persons who take the oath to defend the Constitution irregardless of whether they are officers. And nowhere does the Constitution specifically grant the president immunity for anything he did an office. Not for official actions nor for unofficial or personal actions. There is absolutely no presidential immunity at all to be found anywhere in the US Constitution. Those who think there should at least be a limited immunity have only process for putting that in the Constitution but as of now, it doesn't exist. It was invented out of thin by bureaucrats seeking to protect Nixon back in the 70's.

@maxheadrom3088 4 месяца назад

@@rebeccacanales Where the idea of presidential immunity comes from? Also, is it related to the idea of executive power? Thanks!

@iadorenewyork1 3 месяца назад

The Oath is the thing.

@VB81 4 месяца назад

Question: why is a remedy outlined in Section 3, but no trigger process if it requires one to initiate it? Comment: On pages 2898-2899 of the 1866 Congressional Globe (what the Congressional record was called in 1866, the year the 14th Amendment was passed), Mr. Johnson (a Senator) objects that the President and Vice President offices are omitted. Mr. Morrill (Senator) calls his attention to the phrase 'or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States.' Mr. Johnson withdraws his objection, saying he was misled by noticing the other specific offices mentioned.

@Laocoon283 Месяц назад

"But as new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the convention have, with great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it..." - Madison, Fed 43

@Peerke_Donders 4 месяца назад

Given that am14/3 refers to congress as sole power able to lift a disqualification how can the same congress - in the 1st instance - be supposed to enforce it? Isn't that contradictionary?

@Peerke_Donders 4 месяца назад

enforcing am14/3 - if not self executing - might mean congress needs to once pass a bill on how 14/3 is to be executed. If that is correct: how to determine whether it is self executing or not?

@Peerke_Donders 4 месяца назад

how would the scenario have worked out constitutionally if after the Jan 6 insurrection the Eastman scheme had succeeded ie. congres had announced the next term for Trump?

@nancydouglas8772 4 месяца назад

Interesting question

@2fuzy 4 месяца назад

@George-lt1dl 4 месяца назад

Yes

@johncashler3611 4 месяца назад

@matthewzang6688 4 месяца назад

How is saying “NO” even close to a cogent argument? Wouldn’t it be better to watch the video and respond to specific arguments?

@johncashler3611 4 месяца назад

@@matthewzang6688 no mean no, dont need a criminal rump in any office even a dog catcher

@johncashler3611 4 месяца назад

@@matthewzang6688 no

@johncashler3611 4 месяца назад

@@matthewzang6688 no and why listen to an idiot

@gups4963 4 месяца назад

@@matthewzang6688 Because the supposition of "insurrection", requires word play to even try to make it look valid. Which is a large part of why no sane person takes this nonsense seriously. Simple truth if it had been an insurrection they would've taken physical control of the house with ease and you all already know that. Add in Trump literally telling people to go TF home