Image 01 Image 03

Law Profs Claim ‘Insurrection’ Disqualifies Trump in 2024

Law Profs Claim ‘Insurrection’ Disqualifies Trump in 2024

“constitutionally disqualified from again being President (or holding any other covered office) because of his role in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 election and the events leading to the January 6 attack”

After all the impeachments, investigations and indictments, this was the end goal all along.

The College Fix reports:

Law professors: ‘Insurrection’ disqualifies Trump in 2024

President Donald Trump should be blocked from the presidency in 2024 because of his role in an “insurrection” according to several law professors.

But the arguments for and against invoking the 14th Amendment to stop Trump have created an odd situation, where some of the president’s backers are considered left-leaning professors while some of his detractors are right-leaning scholars.

The 14th Amendment “disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election,” University of Chicago Professor William Baude and University of St. Thomas Professor Michael Paulsen wrote.

“Overall, it seems to us to be quite clear that the specific series of events leading up to and culminating in the January 6, 2021 attack qualifies as an insurrection within the meaning of Section Three: ‘concerted, forcible resistance to the authority of government to execute the laws in at least some significant respect,’” the two Federalist Society-affiliated professors wrote in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review.

“The most politically explosive application of Section Three to the events of January 6, is at the same time the most straightforward,” the pair wrote. “In our view, on the basis of the public record, former President Donald J. Trump is constitutionally disqualified from again being President (or holding any other covered office) because of his role in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 election and the events leading to the January 6 attack.”

The pair went through the reasons to support their theory, including the president’s “incendiary address at the White House Ellipse.”

Although they write that Trump never actually encouraged people to fight, that “[some] of his statements were ambiguous, that he told protesters to march “peacefully and patriotically” and “never directly and literally called for attacking the Capitol or the Vice President” he is still guilty of aiding in the insurrection.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


This is why they called it an “insurrection” in the first place, despite the little incident having absolutely no resemblance to an insurrection.

The left uses language as a weapon. This is a clear example of that.

My old copy of Black Law Dictionary (3d. ed) defines insurrection as rebellion. Rebellion is defined as: “Deliberate, organized resistance, by force and arms, to the laws or operations of government.”

January 6 may have been deliberate to some degree (and that is a stretch), organized to an even-lesser degree, but without force and certainly without arms.

Call it anything you want, he’s still running.

And if you really thought there is a case for that, then why — of all the things Trump has been indicted for — is insurrection glaringly absent?

Im a little confused. These leftest nuts are claiming Trump can’t run due to the 14th Amendment because Insurrection but he has not been charged with that so how does that work?
I’ve heard the plan of Sec of States or AG’s keeping him off the ballot which will cause a lawsuit none of which will be settled by the courts until too late.

    CapeBuffalo in reply to diver64. | September 2, 2023 at 6:16 pm

    Interestingly, these two profs are associated with the Federalist Society, a conservative group who is known for its conservative recommendations for the Suprem Court among other “right wing” things..
    The group Is decidedly conservative, perhaps there is an ongoing leftist infiltration of the Society.

      thad_the_man in reply to CapeBuffalo. | September 2, 2023 at 10:01 pm

      Not infiltrated by leftists. They are RINOs. The Federalist Society is a RINO organisation.

        Any definition of “RINO” that includes the FedSoc is a useless definition.

        The Federalist Society is NOT a RINO organization. If you think so, then you are off the rails nuts. They have been the most important legal organization in America who have recommended some of the finest original intent conservative Judges in all of America. I say this as a lawyer and longtime member. You need to learn how to read.

They’re wrong for a number of reasons.

1. The riot wasn’t an insurrection.

2. He didn’t participate in it.

3. “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State […]”. Notice what is missing from that list. Neither the presidency nor the vice presidency is an “office under the United States”, so even if Trump had personally taken up arms against the United States he could still serve as president.

4. “But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability”, and in 1872 Congress did exactly that, removing “all political disabilities imposed by the third section of the fourteenth article of amendments of the Constitution of the United States […] from all persons whomsoever, except” a list of people that does not include Trump. Note that it did not say “all persons currently disqualified”, it said “all persons whomsoever: By its plain language that includes people who would otherwise have become disqualified in the future. So even if Trump had personally engaged in an insurrection, not only could he still be president, he could also be elected to congress or appointed to some office.

I imagine what will happen is that some state’s Secretary of State will claim that Trump is disqualified on this basis, and then the Trump campaign will challenge that claim in court (notwithstanding the legal scholars’ belief that the clause is “self-enforcing”) and we’ll get a ruling that gets appealed all the way up the ladder. We will also get a score or more Op-Eds and statements from “experts,” and when SCOTUS rules against the state and for the Trump campaign, it will be further proof of SCOTUS’ corruption and the need to pack the court, et cetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

    John M in reply to John M. | September 2, 2023 at 1:59 pm

    (To be clear, I don’t think SCOTUS is corrupt or should be packed. But that will be the steady drumbeat once this is resolved.)

People often point out that W E B DuBois ran for election from jail. WHat they fail to point out is that he was in fail for sedition. So no.


    1. Sedition is not insurrection.

    2. He had never taken an oath to the USA.

    So even if this theory were correct (which it isn’t) it wouldn’t apply to him.

    Also, he was not in jail for sedition. I don’t know where you got that information, but it’s wrong.

    1, He was never even charged with sedition. The charge against him was failure to register as a foreign agent.

    2. He was never convicted. The charges were dismissed during the trial.

    3. I have not been able to find any information that he was ever in jail.