We the People

Should President Trump Be Allowed on the 2024 Ballot?

Jan 11, 2024

In this episode, professors Josh Blackman and Gerard Magliocca dive into the meaning and purpose of the 14th Amendment and the arguments for and against Trump's eligibility to run for a second term. They discuss the constitutional issues surrounding Section 3, the implications for Congress and states, the historical context of insurrection, the decision-making authority for Trump's eligibility, the options if he wins the nomination, and the comparison to Bush v. Gore. Finally, they present their final thoughts on the Supreme Court case.

01:00:16

Episode guests

Gerard Magliocca

Josh Blackman

AI Summary

AI Chapters

Episode notes

Podcast summary created with Snipd AI

Quick takeaways

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies individuals who have engaged in an insurrection from holding office, raising the question of President Trump's eligibility to run for a second term.

The court should consider the Brandenburg standard to determine whether January 6th was an insurrection and whether President Trump engaged in it.

The court should examine the original intent of the framers and the purpose of Section 3 to determine whether the President is considered an officer under Section 3.

Deep dives

The meaning and purpose of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies individuals who have engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the United States from holding office. The podcast explores the argument for and against President Trump's eligibility to run for president for a second term under Section 3. One argument is that the president is an officer of the United States and therefore covered by Section 3. Another argument is that enforcement legislation is needed to remove someone from office. The Supreme Court should resolve this case by affirming the Colorado Supreme Court's decision, concluding that President Trump engaged in an insurrection and is disqualified from running for president.

Introduction

2min

The President's Eligibility: Constitutional Issues and Arguments

10min

Contradictory Opinions on Eligibility of State Judges

14min

The Question of Whether January 6th Was an Insurrection

15min

Decision-Making Authority for President Trump's 2024 Ballot Eligibility

7min

The Implications of President Trump Winning the Nomination and Electoral Counting

5min

Comparing the Current Case to Bush v. Gore and the Chaos Argument

3min

Closing Thoughts on the Case of President Trump's Inclusion on the 2024 Ballot

4min

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 of the 14th Amendment 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.

Resources:

Jeffrey Rosen, “The Supreme Court’s Election Dilemma,” WSJ (Jan. 5, 2024)

Gerard Magliocca, “Background as Foreground: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment and January Sixth,” (Dec. 21, 2022)

Gerard Magliocca, “Amnesty and Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment,” (July 20, 2021)

Gerard Magliocca, “What the Supreme Court Should Not Do in Trump’s Disqualification Case,” NY Times (Jan. 5, 2024)

Josh Blackman & Seth Tillman, “Sweeping and Forcing the President into Section Three,” (Sept. 19, 2023)

Josh Blackman & Seth Tillman, “Is the President an ‘Officer of the United States’ for Purposes of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment?” (Dec. 20, 2021)

Josh Blackman & Seth Tillman, Amicus Brief in Support of Trump in Trump v. Anderson

Griffin’s Case (1869)

The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873)

Bradwell v. Illinois (1873)

Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. 