In recent weeks, a notable development has emerged concerning the eligibility of former President Donald Trump to potentially serve as president again.
The subject was addressed in a paper published by two conservative law professors in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review earlier this month. The paper, penned by William Maude from the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen from the University of St.
Thomas School of Law delves into the argument that Trump’s involvement in an insurrection disqualifies him from being constitutionally fit for a future presidential term.
Titled “The Sweep and Force of Section Three,” the paper references Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment—a post-Civil War addition to the Constitution. The authors contend that this section should be applicable to Trump, given his actions.
They elaborate on a series of events, including Trump’s dissemination of false claims regarding voter fraud, his attempts to interfere with the electoral process, and his alleged incitement of the violent attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
While legal experts acknowledge the existence of a potential legal basis for this argument, the feasibility of its enforcement to prevent Trump from running for office again remains questionable.
Despite its challenges, the discussion surrounding this argument persists. Prominent conservative legal scholars have been increasingly raising the question of whether Donald Trump should be constitutionally prohibited from pursuing the presidency in the 2024 election.
The latest proponents of this viewpoint include Laurence Tribe, a liberal law professor, and J. Michael Luttig, a former conservative legal scholar who has turned into a critic of Trump’s policies.
They voiced their opinions on this matter in a recent piece published in The Atlantic. As this debate continues to gain attention, it raises significant questions about the intersection of constitutional interpretation and political eligibility.