Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

LetMyPeopleVote

(166,377 posts)
10. CO judge's 'bizarro' Trump eligibility ruling ripped apart by constitutional law experts
Sat Nov 18, 2023, 04:42 PM
Nov 2023

This opinion is very questionable. It makes no sense that the POTUS is the only official who is not subject to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. I agree with Prof. Tribe and Judge Luttig's analysis



https://www.rawstory.com/trump-ineligible-2024/

Former federal Judge Michael Luttig and constitutional law expert Laurence Tribe spoke with host Ali Velshi less than 24 hours hour the ruling came down where Wallace agreed the former president took part in the Jan. 6 insurrection but didn't feel he was covered by wording in Section Three that would bar him from running for office.

According to Tribe, the judge made an "egregious error" in her ruling which Tribe also labeled as "bizzaro."

"The court did egregiously error in holding that the office of the president is not an office under the United States, turning constitutional interpretation upside down, by finding the unambiguous text of Section Three ambiguous because of a sliver of debate history that is not only itself ambiguous, but is rendered singularly unpersuasive by other exchanges in the debate history," Luttig explained. "That reflects the understanding that the office of president is of course an office under the United States, from which a person can be disqualified by Section Three."

'You suggested that this was a narrow interpretation of section three," he told the MSNBC host. "It is that and more. It is the narrowest possible interpretation of Section Three, it's the interpretation urged on the court by the former president's lawyers. But it's simply incorrect as a matter of constitutional law."

?si=xtN9DpghIs86BaeS

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Region Forums»Colorado»A Colorado judge finds Tr...»Reply #10