Prof. Will Baude on Section 3, Insurrection, and Trump
Oct 3, 2023
auto_awesome
Constitutional law expert Prof. William Baude joins Sarah and David to discuss why he thinks Trump's actions in 2020 might disqualify him from running again. They analyze the interpretation and implications of Section 3, the phrase 'preserve, protect, and defend,' and eligibility determinations. They also touch on historical events, the appearance of newborn babies, a football game between the Chiefs and Jets, and trends in athlete facial hair.
Prof. William Baude argues that Trump's actions during the January 6th insurrection may disqualify him from running for president again based on the interpretation of terms like 'office' and 'officer of the United States' in the Constitution.
The Minnesota Supreme Court's ruling on Trump's eligibility will provide clarity on the interpretation of terms like 'office' and 'officer of the United States' and potentially impact the upcoming election, shaping future eligibility requirements for presidential candidates.
The failed impeachment proceedings against Trump serve as an alternative avenue for disqualification, highlighting the balance between political processes like impeachment and constitutional interpretation in cases involving election law.
Deep dives
Minnesota Supreme Court to Decide on Donald Trump's Eligibility
The Minnesota Supreme Court is currently hearing oral arguments regarding Donald Trump's eligibility to be on the state's presidential ballot. A petition has been filed to determine whether Trump's actions during the January 6th insurrection disqualify him from holding office under the 14th Amendment. The Secretary of State has asked for a ruling by early January, as printing ballots would need to be done accordingly. The court's decision could have significant implications for the upcoming election and the interpretation of terms like 'office' and 'officer of the United States' in the Constitution.
Interpreting the Constitution's Language
The discussion surrounding Trump's eligibility is centered on the interpretation of terms like 'office' and 'officer of the United States' in the Constitution. Some argue that these terms should be understood as including the president, while others contend that they exclude the president. The Minnesota Supreme Court's decision will provide clarity on how these terms should be understood in relation to Trump's eligibility. The court's ruling could also shed light on the broader interpretation of these terms in other constitutional contexts.
The Practical Implications of the Case
The Minnesota Supreme Court's ruling in this case will have practical implications for the upcoming election. If Trump is determined to be ineligible, his name may be removed from the state's ballot, potentially impacting the electoral outcome. The court's decision will also shape the understanding of eligibility requirements for presidential candidates going forward. It highlights the challenges of interpreting constitutional language and the need to find an appropriate balance between legal analysis and political accountability in cases involving election law.
Impeachment as an Alternative
One of the reasons cited for not including Trump's eligibility on the Minnesota ballot is that impeachment serves as an alternative method of disqualification. The failed impeachment of Trump after the January 6th insurrection is seen as a mechanism for holding him accountable for his actions. This alternative avenue suggests that disqualification can be addressed through political processes, such as impeachment, rather than through constitutional interpretation.
Applying the 14th Amendment Section 3
The podcast episode discusses the application of the 14th Amendment Section 3 in relation to disqualifying individuals from holding office or participating in the United States government. The hosts explore the debate surrounding the interpretation of "insurrection" and how it applies to various scenarios, such as the events of January 6th. They delve into the arguments for and against disqualifying individuals based on Section 3, considering factors like the definition of insurrection and the need for an airtight legal argument. The conversation highlights the importance of establishing a clear norm and determining the scope of Section 3's application in maintaining a democratic system.
Mutual Benefit and Potential Consequences
In addition to the legal discussion, the podcast briefly touches on the unlikely romance between Taylor Swift and Travis Kelsey, a football player for the Kansas City Chiefs. While some skepticism arises regarding the authenticity of this relationship, the hosts speculate on the mutual benefits and potential consequences involved. They note the potential influence and publicity generated by the association, as well as the mob-like following Taylor Swift has, which could pose a threat if any harm were to befall her. Overall, they explore the fleeting nature of such relationships and the potential one-sided benefits that may arise from them.
Prof. William Baude joins Sarah and David to explain why he thinks Trump's actions in 2020 might be constitutionally disqualified from running for president again.
