HLS Rappaport Forum: Trump v. Anderson: Does the 14th Amendment Disqualify Trump from Public Office?

Harvard Law School

26 Jan 202454:25

EducationalLearning

32 Likes 10 Comments

TLDRConstitutional law experts Akhil Reed Amar and Michael Mukasey debate whether the 14th Amendment disqualifies former president Donald Trump from holding public office again due to his alleged role in the January 6th Capitol insurrection. They examine the amendment's precise language, legislative history, and original intent regarding the presidency. Amar argues Trump engaged in insurrection and is clearly covered, while Mukasey contends the president is not an 'officer' under the amendment. They also dispute whether Section 3 is self-executing and who can decide if Trump committed insurrection. The high stakes for democracy are acknowledged amid disagreement on interpreting history and the Constitution.

Takeaways

😟 The case examines if the 14th Amendment disqualifies Trump from public office for engaging in insurrection during the Jan 6 Capitol riots.
😟 Amar and Mukasey disagree on whether 'office' and 'officer' in the 14th Amendment apply to the president.
😟 Mukasey argues the 14th Amendment is not self-executing and needs Congressional action to disqualify candidates.
😟 Amar believes Section 3 is self-executing, citing historical examples of its enforcement without statutes.
😟 Mukasey says only criminal conviction for insurrection should disqualify candidates, not state rulings.
😟 Amar argues states can enforce Section 3 eligibility rules, citing Neil Gorsuch's 10th Circuit ruling.
😟 Mukasey says the Colorado ruling wrongly relied on the Jan 6 committee findings, lacking substance.
😟 Amar and Mukasey disagree on whether the Jan 6 riots constituted an insurrection under Section 3.
😟 Mukasey feels Trump should be defeated at the polls, not disqualified under Section 3 procedures.
😟 Amar believes getting the Constitution right via text, history and purpose is key for democracy.

Q & A

What is the key legal question being debated in Trump v. Anderson?
-Whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies former President Trump from holding public office because he allegedly engaged in insurrection or rebellion.
What does Section 3 of the 14th Amendment state?
-It states that no person shall hold any office who, having previously taken an oath to support the Constitution, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States.
What are the key arguments made by Akhil Amar?
-Amar argues that Section 3 applies to presidents and former presidents, it is self-executing, and Trump's actions on and before January 6th constituted insurrection or rebellion.
What are the key arguments made by Michael Mukasey?
-Mukasey argues that Section 3 does not apply to presidents, it requires Congressional enforcement, and Trump's actions did not amount to insurrection or rebellion.
How does the issue of textualism relate to the debate?
-There is disagreement over whether too much weight is being placed on the exact text versus understanding the purpose and context behind Section 3.
What is the significance of the Blunt case to this debate?
-It relates to whether senators are considered officers of the United States, which affects the interpretation of Section 3's scope.
What were the two insurrections discussed from the 1860s?
-The first was an attempt to prevent Lincoln's inauguration, the second was the actual Civil War.
What does Mukasey argue is required for a Section 3 disqualification?
-He argues only a federal criminal conviction for insurrection could disqualify someone under Section 3.
How does the issue of democratic principles relate to this case?
-There are concerns about both allowing an allegedly ineligible candidate to run and disqualifying a popular candidate against the will of voters.
What does Amar cite as the ultimate authority in resolving this issue?
-He argues the Constitution itself embodies democratic principles and should guide how Section 3 is interpreted and applied.

Outlines

00:00

😃 Welcome to the event

The first paragraph introduces the event on Trump versus Anderson about whether 14th Amendment Section 3 disqualifies Trump from public office. It introduces the speakers Akhil Amar and Michael Mukasey who will debate the key issues from opposite sides.

05:08

😀 Amar's opening statement

Amar begins by expressing honor to participate and thanks the organizers. He believes his side may lose but doubts it will be on the argument that 'office' and 'officer' don't apply to Trump. He argues it is clear the amendment covers the president, as shown by the language, context, and history.

10:09

😠 Mukasey argues Trump is not an 'officer'

Mukasey argues Trump is not an 'officer of the United States' based on the appointments clause, impeachment clause, and commissions clause. He also cites the removal of 'president' from an earlier draft and floor debates as evidence the presidency was intentionally excluded.

15:10

😲 Debate over meaning and reliance on text

The moderator asks about relying heavily on textual analysis for such a momentous issue. Amar argues constitutional text is paramount. Mukasey agrees, citing the metaphor of the Cheshire cat's smile remaining after the cat disappears.

20:13

😃 Amar defends his Blunt analysis

Amar defends his analysis of the Blunt case, clarifying details Mukasey cited incorrectly. He reiterates the lack of any historical figure clearly arguing the presidency isn't covered and the absurdity of that view.

25:13

😠 Mukasey doubles down on textual argument

Mukasey further details constitutional clauses he believes show the president is not an 'officer', including appointments, impeachment, and commissions clauses. He maintains his 'quibble' holds up textually.

30:18

😮 Debate over self-executing nature

They debate whether Section 3 is self-executing without Congressional action. Mukasey cites 1870 enforcement legislation and Chase ruling it non-self-executing. Amar argues most 14A rights don't need legislation and notes Grant's military enforcement.

35:22

😕 Discussion on proper process

They discuss the proper process and body to determine Trump engaged in insurrection, with Amar citing state supreme courts and Congress and Mukasey arguing only a federal criminal conviction should suffice.

40:25

😮 Defining insurrection versus riot

Asked to define insurrection, Mukasey doesn't think January 6 rose to that level but Amar details two 1860s insurrections, arguing the first resembled January 6 in attempting to prevent lawful transfer of power.

45:25

😃 Amar sees high democratic stakes

Given the high democratic stakes, Amar argues following the Constitution's text, history and purpose represents democratic wisdom. Mukasey believes defeating Trump at the polls is healthier than disqualification.

Mindmap

Keywords

💡14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law. Within the context of this video, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is specifically highlighted. This section prohibits anyone who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or given aid and comfort to its enemies, from holding office. The video discusses the application of this clause to former President Donald Trump, following his alleged involvement in events characterized by some as insurrection, particularly focusing on whether it disqualifies him from appearing on the Colorado primary ballot or holding public office again.

💡insurrection

Insurrection refers to a violent uprising against an authority or government. The video script centers on the debate over whether Donald Trump engaged in insurrection, as defined by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, through his actions surrounding the events of January 6th. This term is crucial to the argument about Trump's eligibility for public office, with differing opinions on whether his actions constituted an insurrection against the United States.

💡Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is mentioned as the judicial body that will hear the case Trump vs. Anderson, which addresses the constitutional debate over Trump's eligibility to serve as president under the 14th Amendment. This highlights the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting constitutional provisions and resolving significant legal disputes that have wide-ranging implications for the country.

💡Colorado Supreme Court

The Colorado Supreme Court's decision to hold Donald Trump ineligible to serve as president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment acts as the catalyst for the Supreme Court case discussed in the video. This decision is pivotal as it interprets the 14th Amendment in a way that challenges Trump's ability to appear on the Colorado primary ballot, emphasizing the significance of state courts in interpreting federal constitutional provisions.

💡Amicus Brief

An amicus brief is a document filed in court by someone who is not a party to the case, offering information or expertise relevant to the case. The video mentions that both speakers, Akhil Amar and Michael Mukasey, have participated in filing amicus briefs on opposite sides of the Trump vs. Anderson case. This underscores the involvement of legal scholars and professionals in significant legal debates, contributing their insights to the Supreme Court's considerations.

💡eligibility challenges

Eligibility challenges refer to legal contests regarding a candidate's qualification to appear on a ballot or hold public office. The script references more than 30 challenges to Trump's eligibility across various states, spotlighting the widespread legal and political ramifications of the 14th Amendment's interpretation on Trump's potential candidacy.

💡original meaning

The term 'original meaning' relates to the interpretation of the Constitution as understood at the time of its drafting and ratification. In the video, this concept is discussed in the context of trying to ascertain the 14th Amendment's original intent, especially regarding the disqualification of individuals from office for engaging in insurrection or rebellion. This approach to constitutional interpretation plays a central role in the legal debate over Trump's eligibility.

💡self-executing

The term 'self-executing' in the video refers to whether a provision of the Constitution automatically applies without the need for additional legislation. The debate includes whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is self-executing regarding the disqualification of individuals who have engaged in insurrection from holding office. This is a key point in determining how the clause can be enforced and its implications for Trump's candidacy.

💡political consequences

Political consequences refer to the broader impact of the legal debate over Trump's eligibility on the political landscape. The video touches on the divisive nature of this issue and its potential to influence public opinion, voter behavior, and the overall democratic process. The mention of political consequences highlights the intersection between law and politics, especially in cases with significant public interest.

💡historical context

Historical context in the video pertains to the background and circumstances under which the 14th Amendment was drafted, particularly after the Civil War, to address issues of citizenship, rights, and the reintegration of Confederate states. The discussion on historical context is crucial for understanding the original purposes of the Amendment's provisions, including the disqualification clause, and how they might apply beyond the immediate post-Civil War era to contemporary situations like that involving Donald Trump.

Highlights

Policy has driven price stability without compromising growth

Inflation expectations remain well anchored

Labor market remains strong despite some slowing

Housing investment and sales have softened significantly

Business investment has slowed amid higher interest rates

Supply chain disruptions have eased somewhat

Consumer spending moderated as higher prices have reduced purchasing power

Interest rate increases expected to continue to fight inflation

International developments creating additional economic uncertainties

Fiscal policy no longer providing impetus but acting as drag on growth

Risks remain elevated given uncertainty around global growth and inflation

Policy remains focused on restoring price stability

Data-dependent approach allows flexibility to adapt policy as outlook evolves

Clear communication and transparency essential for effective policy

Goal is 'soft landing' with growth slowing but recession avoided

Transcripts

Browse More Related Video

Democracy on Trial (full documentary) | FRONTLINE

Donald Trump and The Supreme Court | Uncommon Knowledge

Truth and Trump: An Evening with Bob Woodward | TVO Today Live

Robert De Niro on Trump Being “So F**king Stupid,” Being at the Oscars & New Movie Ezra

Victor Davis Hanson On The State of the Union . . . and a Biden-Trump Rematch | GoodFellows

History vs. Richard Nixon - Alex Gendler