Legal expert makes conservative 'originalist' case against 'insurrectionist' Trump

05 February 2024

In Trump v. Anderson, the U.S. Supreme will evaluate whether the Colorado Supreme Court was right or wrong when it excluded 2024 GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump from the state's election ballot based on Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. Oral arguments are scheduled for this Thursday, February 8.

Some of the proponents of disqualifying Trump because of Section 3 are conservatives, including J. Michael Luttig (a retired former federal judge). And others are Democrats — among them, attorney Jill Labig, who served as special counsel to now-Vice President Kamala Harris when she was California state attorney general and now heads the Public Rights Project.

Habig has filed an amicus brief on behalf of historians David Blight and Jill Lepore, who, in Trump v. Anderson, are arguing that Section 3 disqualifies Trump from the 2024 presidential election. Under Section 3, an "officer" who has engaged in "insurrection" is barred from certain government positions.

In an article published on February 5, The Guardian's David Smith stresses that Habig, by using "originalist" arguments, is giving the Roberts Court a "taste of their own medicine."

Habig told The Guardian, "Our goal was to bring an originalist historical perspective to the Supreme Court as it considered the meaning of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The point we make with our historian colleagues is that the history of Section 3 is actually very clear."

The attorney continued, "It demonstrates that Section 3 was intended to automatically disqualify insurrectionists…. It was intended to apply not only to the Civil War, but also, to future insurrections. And it bars anyone who has betrayed an oath to uphold the Constitution from becoming president of the United States."

Read The Guardian's full article at this link.

From Your Site Articles