How so? Trump is running scared of the DC case, the GA case, andnthe documents case. Democrats won't be found guilty for any of that. It was Republicans from the Federalist Society who started the process to kick him off the ballots in the states. They are Constitutional Purist. So no. Democrats aren't scared like MAGA is.
I think Trump is horrible, but I don't agree that purpose plus violence automatically equals insurrection. That's the formula that was given in the podcast, to justify calling a riot an insurrection. So let's take that formula at face value: Suppose that instead of a riot following incitement to riot, there had been a conspiracy for the same purposes, but it only consisted of two people, one of whom did nothing but conspire and incite, and the other of whom did nothing more than slap a capitol police officer. A slap is violence, so the test, as stated, would have been met. We can say that this scenario would amount to insurrection. Or we can say that there is a question of how much violence it takes (given suitable motivation) to add up to an insurrection. Maybe there's a historical record, from which it's obvious that a riot, on one day in one location, is enough to meet the threshold. But if so, why not present that record? Quote some legislative history, where the members of Congress who voted to submit the 14th to the states for ratification mentioned a one-time one-location riot, and called it insurrection. To me, it's clear that the amendment does not refer exclusively to the Civil War, but rather to anything that's in the same category with the Civil War -- while leaving it open how large that category is.
Trump has never even been charged with insurrection, much less tried or convicted. These attempts to get him off the ballot are a joke. I'm no MAGA head
You seem to be blissfully unaware that Drumpf's insurrection is now a matter of established legal fact. Following a 5-day public trial, the District Court in Colorado ruled that the allegations of insurrection and Drumpf's incitement of it and participation in it had been "proven by clear and convincing evidence." That ruling was subsequently upheld on appeal 7-0 by the state Supreme Court. So your meandering ruminations are fairly well obliterated.
@@user-tf4ho2uo1e The constitution does not require Trump to be convicted. His planning, incitement and abetting of the insurrection is a matter of public record.
@@comets4sale where was the insurrection? where was the plan to kidnap or kill congress? where was the plan for the new government to be put in place? that was not an insurrection. it was a delusional protest that got out of hand and became a riot.
Oh my gosh, this is an amazing podcast! I've been a fan of David French for years, and it's amazing to see him put his skills and knowledge to such timely use. Thanks for having him on the show, Ezra!
Yes, I think trump can/should be barred from office. But the problem with my view is, I'm looking at the evidence logically. I'm not looking at trump as a surrogate "daddy" who is going to "save" the country.
yes i love when they claim that based on not a single piece of evidence, all after he hasnt been convicted or even accused of attempting an insurrectio...
@wasdwasdedsf - I have many discussions and debates going on at the moment. Trump is actively doing his best to delay all of his court dates concerning the indictments in DC, documents case, and the GA case. Why would he be claiming presidential immunity and, at the same time, say he never took an oath to preserve and uphold the Constitution?
@@BurrQ19 presidential immunity is against the constitution, and if one claims to be in favour of preserving and upholidng the constitution, one can thus not claim presidential immunity?
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:53 🎙️ *The political moment is marked by Trump's significant lead in polls, making him the likely Republican nominee, but simultaneously facing legal and constitutional challenges.* 01:34 🏛️ *The Colorado Supreme Court ruled Trump disqualified from the ballot due to his actions on January 6, based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.* 02:02 ⚖️ *Trump faces four criminal suits with over 90 charges, leading to legal and constitutional troubles despite his strong political standing.* 03:12 🗳️ *The discussion revolves around whether Trump should be allowed on the 2024 ballot, posing a conflict between democratic processes and constitutional guardrails.* 03:43 🤔 *The Colorado Supreme Court's reasoning relies on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, disqualifying Trump for engaging in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution.* 05:32 🛡️ *Section 3 is considered an anti-democratic provision, a counter-majoritarian element preventing insurrectionists from holding office, acknowledging the need for certain limits in a democracy.* 08:56 📜 *The historical context of Section 3 emerges from post-Civil War challenges, aiming to prevent former Confederates involved in insurrection from returning to government without Congressional approval.* 10:07 📖 *Legal scholars, Bod and Paulson, argue that Section 3 applies to Trump through originalist interpretation, examining historical public meaning to include events like January 6.* 13:10 📚 *The definition of insurrection at the time was broad enough to encompass the violent attack on January 6, addressing concerns of political violence disrupting governance.* 16:37 ⚖️ *Trump's involvement in legal subterfuge and the January 6 events is highlighted, challenging the notion that his actions were within the bounds of lawful protest or political disagreement.* 19:51 🤔 *Intent and belief in election fraud are discussed; however, criminal statutes differ from Section 3, which doesn't require a criminal conviction.* 22:27 🏛️ *Section 3 doesn't necessitate a criminal conviction, and its historical context differs from post-Civil War amnesty, making it more applicable to Trump's actions on January 6.* 23:50 🏛️ *The self-executing nature of Section 3 is debated, questioning whether Congress needs to enact legislation to define circumstances and standards for its application.* 24:03 📜 *The 14th Amendment allows disqualification of a candidate for engaging in insurrection or rebellion without requiring a criminal conviction.* 25:12 🗽 *Due process for presidential candidates is tied to the strength of the liberty interest involved, which is lower for running for office compared to criminal cases.* 28:52 🇺🇸 *The 14th Amendment creates a presumption against eligibility for individuals engaged in insurrection or rebellion, aiming to prevent them from regaining access to government.* 32:53 ⚖️ *The Supreme Court faces a heavy lift in declaring a presidential candidate disqualified, but historical precedents show instances where it acted against unjust systems.* 39:19 🔍 *Donald Trump's disruptive behavior shapes the institutional responses, making them seem more oppositional, and he often capitalizes on this dynamic for political narratives.* 43:32 🤔 *Disqualifying Trump may be the most stabilizing option, considering the potential for turmoil if he wins and responds with retribution, or if he loses, triggering unrest as seen after the 2020 election.* 48:47 🏛️ *Trump is distancing himself from Republican establishment figures and the Federalist Society, emphasizing a different approach if re-elected.* 49:27 ⚔️ *Trump's allies consider invoking the Insurrection Act on day one, giving the president significant power to control military forces.* 50:08 🔥 *Concerns arise about the potential danger in having an insurrectionist leading the most powerful military globally.* 51:28 🤝 *Transition from a coalition government to a non-coalition government, with MAGA dominating, poses challenges to checks and balances.* 52:51 😠 *MAGA supporters are more radicalized and angrier than before, creating challenges in addressing political polarization.* 54:19 ⚖️ *Trump's legal argument for presidential immunity in court faces skepticism; a delay tactic rather than a strong defense.* 55:55 🔄 *Trump's claim that impeachment is the sole remedy for presidential misconduct is viewed as near-frivolous.* 57:20 ⚖️ *Four criminal cases against Trump with internal indictments involve hush money, classified documents, and January 6.* 58:55 🌐 *Multiple potential destabilizing scenarios if Trump, even with convictions, is allowed to run for president again.* 59:23 📚 *Book recommendations: "Operation Pedestal" by Max Hastings, "Into the Heart of Romans" by NT Wright, and "Manhunt" by James Swanson.* Made with HARPA AI
How so? It is Constitutional pursuit Federalist Society Republicans who started the efforts to kick Trump off the ballot. Democrats are only there to follow the 14th Amendment Section 3. It's Constitutional. Not political. The one is is scared of accountability is Trump and his swallowers, as he is actively trying to delay the DC case, the GA case, and documents case that would be able to prove that he is guilty of insurrection, election tampering, and usurping put national security. If he had contact with any of those who have been convicted of seditious conspiracy, then he's guilty of insurrection. It's clear as day
According to the Constitution of the United States of America, he has disqualified himself and therefore can not be included on any ballot for any political office within the country.
Only one party was to ban Trump The democrats They are also kicking other democrats running against Biden off the ballot How is this saving our democracy
yes i love when they claim that based on not a single piece of evidence, all after he hasnt been convicted or even accused of attempting an insurrectio...
"Innocent until proven guilty" isn't what the 14th Amendment Section 3 requires. It doesn't require a formal trial to determine Trump's guilt. At this point, it will be left to the Supreme Court to determine if it requires any due process at all, but the Amendment's text is clear that it doesn't require a trial or conviction. However, I don't think there is much doubt about Trump's actions on Jan 6 and the ways that he provided "aid or comfort to the enemies". There may be some questions about all the ways he participated in the fake elector's scheme, but after all the evidence presented by the House's investigation, we already have enough evidence of what Trump did, without needing the Georgia case to conclude.
Do ya'll even realize how un-democratic you're being? You keep accusing him of trying to steal an election, while you're trying to steal an election.@@amosbatto3051
@@amosbatto3051right YOU get to decide. There you have it gentlemen, what more evidence do we need. Judas thank you for the victim, stay awhile and you'll see him bleed
The 14th Amendment section 3 doesn't require that. But if that is what YOU require, then are you behind any of Trumps tactics to delay the DC court case, GA court case, and documents case that would be able to convict him for insurrection, election tampering, and usurping the USA national security? People who are behind those actions are not really for America. They are fake.
Yes. It’s not a political question. It’s a constitutional question & we should not be cherry picking amendments. He’s qualified or he is not. If the states determine he incited, supported, or participated in the insurrection they should not be prevented from barring him from eligibility.
That would be the logical interpretation of the text, but with the right-wing ideologues on the current Supreme Court, it is almost impossible to say whether they will do a literal reading of the 14th Amendment. Frankly, if the Supreme Court rules that Colorado isn't allowed to bar Trump from the ballot, I believe that it will undermine the credible of the Supreme Court, because it will reveal that they are just partisan ideologues who have no fidelity to the written text in the Constitution.
yes i love when they claim that based on not a single piece of evidence, all after he hasnt been convicted or even accused of attempting an insurrectio...
@@wasdwasdedsf Your imagination says: "based on not a single piece of evidence..." Factual Reality says: 5-day very-public trial, with witnesses, experts, legal scholars, hundreds of documents, video & audio recordings, trial transcripts, etc., etc.... altogether sufficient to result in the trial court ruling that the insurrection and Drumpf 's integral part in it had been "proven by clear and convincing evidence." Then, that trial court's finding-of-fact was subsequently upheld 7-0 by the state Supreme Court. If there could possibly be a larger, wider, deeper gap between actual factual reality and your ill-informed imagination, I can't even begin to imagine how. Next: You imagine that lack of criminal conviction is relevant somehow. It isn't. It's just a meaningless noise.
Mr. Klein: I would love an episode on how Justices are appointed and confirmed; how long they stay Justices and a comparison between the US and other major countries. I'm from Brazil and we copied your SCOTUS (president appoints and senate confirm for a term that ends with death or retirement) and the problem we've been facing is the Constitutional Court (The Supreme Federal Tribunal - STF) ends up reaching decisions that often are good for politicians and that change according to the everyday political flavors and moods of the people who apointed and confirmed the justices. In Brazil a convict have the right to appeal to 3 courts after a first conviction. Also, convicts can only go to jail after "due process and ample defense". The problem is "what's due process and ample defense?". If that's understood as a conviction by the Superior Justice Tribunal (STJ) then no one will ever be jailed. The fact is most people can't afford to even an appeal to reach the first level of appeal (second instance, as we say here) and therefore the understanding equals a out of jail card for those who can afford and is meaningless to those who can't. The question as put to the Constitutional Court some years ago and they reached an understanding that a conviction on the first level of appeal mean "the due process and ample defense" has been met and the person can be sent to jail. Then, the issue was once more put to the Constitutional Court - when a lot of politicians were being sent to jail during the Car Wash operation, including Pres. Lula - and original understanding (3rd level of appeal) came back! Now ... the justices changed but the interpretation was only approved because the most senior justice, Gilmar Mendes, changed his opinion! During Lula's first two terms, the Court behaved highly independtently - including the Chief Justice, a black law scholar appointed by Lula, Joaquim Barbosa. The Court overal behavior was a result of the justices personalities but also of puplic pressure. For a while we stopped thinking about the fact that those Justices - the only ones, in Brazil, who can judge important and specific cases against elected politicians - was composed of people appointed and confirmed by politicians! When Justice Mendes changed his opinion the preocupation resurfaced and after Bolsonaro's election it got even worse because the Court decided it should stop Bolsonaro and, to do that, helping clear a former Corruption convict who spent time in jail - Lula - was ok. Some of those Justices acted - though in a misguided manner, imho - honestly but few of them may have not acted honestly and may actually be working to re-stablish the systemic corruption system between the Executive and Legislative. What a lot of law scholars argue is that the problem of Justices working for those who appointed and confirmed them - a problem that, afaik, only now happened in the US - comes from how they are appointed and confirmed, from the fact that anyone can fill the position and the lifelong term. I know there are other systems, like the German one, where Justices serve for 12 years and other differences. I hope you can do an episode because when people like Bolsonaro or Trump are around, people start to think only in the very short term and end up accepting very bad solutions.
Hello Brazilian brother, I live in Australia, and as far as I am concerned, the entire legal system is a sham, its main function is to legitimize the usurpation of the land and it resources by multinational polluters, and is why we have no power to control what is done to the environment. We are still the landless powerless serfs we have always been. If the Justices fulfilled their "sacred" duties, the entire executive of the USA, UK and Australia would be rotting away in jail for war crimes. I am particularly appalled how Western populations continue to enable war crimes at the ballot box. Biden recently went to Israel declaring his full support for Israel demonizing the Palestinian people as collectively being as evil as ISIS. Without the 3 billion a year that the US gives to Israel (1.8 billion of it spent on military hardware) its economy would collapse, while Democrats in America are advocating a "Blue" vote as a vote for a free and democratic America, that is tantamount to signing the death warrants of more innocent Palestinians. Its all short term thinking in the west based upon, what is best for me now....and bugger everyone else. As long as this BS system of BS nation states, and BS money remains in place, our extinction, and the majority of life on the planet is fait accompli.
How slippery is Section 3? If SCOTUS upholds the Colorado finding that Trump engaged in insurrection, but allows Trump to appear on the ballot, is SCOTUS providing aid and comfort and violating their own oath of office?
The SCOC(Colorado) and SCOTUS are two different supreme courts. The president of the USA is not an officer. The insurrection clause of A14 DOES NOT apply to presidents. SCOTUS will find in favor of the 47th president of the USA AKA Donald Trump
@@videowatchaccount7551 Ridiculous. The text 'office of president' occurs 9 times in the constitution, including the oath of office. The 14th amendment section 3 concerns what happens if that oath is broken. The literal definition of an officer is one who holds office. This SCOTUS can't ignore the black letter of the Constitution.
This is the same problem as why I think it's wrong to say that felon's can't vote. Because if you have so many felons that it's a problem, maybe the party in power *should* be removed. Because if you just let Trump make enough people be felons so he can't lose anymore, that's not a good outcome.
According to Article #14 of the constitution of the United States of America, there is no requirement for a trial or vote of judgment. It is "self-evident" and universally known.
@@CollectiveWesterner Yeah but it seems less than 50% of your country believes it to be 'self evident' so it cannot be universally known. For something to be 'universally known' then you would need a very large % of the population to agree. Yes? That's the crux of the issue
@thomasshotter9023 There is roughly 30% - 35% of the citizenry who try to protect their cult leader, but with all of the extensive video recordings, bipartisan congregational investigation and report, as well as the testimonies of thousands of victims and police present that day. Also included in the tsunami of evidence would be the testimonies of the family members of people who died because of the insurrection.
@thomasshotter9023 One other thing worth mentioning....1,200+ of the anti-American insurrectionists have been charged with their crimes, and over 900+ are currently in prison. (It would be impossible to imprison a thousand citizens if it was not accepted as fact that Trump's attempted violent coup to remain in power was an insurrection.)
I'm not a citizen of nor live in the US. I'm from Latin America. The legal opinion from the originalists is interesting and it may point twards an eventual SCOTUS decision agreeing with the opinion. That's would mean the definition of insurrection or rebellion will change. I do agree with a lot of what the MAGA people - and Mr. Klein position when playing devil's advocate - but in case the understanding of what insurrection or rebellion is changes, that won't matter. I find Mr. French's position that speech inciting violence doesn't require a high burden of proof to be quite dangerous. According to Prof. Kim Lane Scheppele (as I tunderstand her positions on the Orban case and how he manage to it legally) that would open dangerous doors - more dangerous than an eventual Trump re-election. That could make something like "We all must enter congress and go to every Representative and Senator's office to try and convince them not to vote for the bill" into a violence inciting speech. I find important to note, also, that a democracy without counter majoritan legislation is no democracy at all.
The statement that section 3 is anti-democratic is absolute crap. It's a guardrail they put in, AND, they offered a remedy for the person... 2/3's of Congress can override. It's more democratic than the other two provisions limiting who can run. Sheesh! French is a smart guy but not on this one.
Stop with the feckless rules lawyering. Stop trying to win with loopholes. Stop thinking like smart people and start thinking how stupid or malicious people could abuse this.
Intelligence is a circle. It's absolutely possible, and increasingly common, to think so hard about an idea, to inject so much complexity into your thought process, that you leave simple common sense behind. You wrap back around to the wrong end of the circle. You get so disconnected from reality doing mental gymnastics that your behavior stops being intelligent. You start doing things like saying "that's a context dependent decission" when Congress asks you if calling for genocide is bullying.
Sorry but this guy did not make the case at all the Trump participated in the violence. That was an incredibly weak argument and demonstrates why, unfortunately, there is no case against him.
Did you bother listening to the podcast, where they talked about all the ways that Trump incited the mob on Jan 6, and the preponderance of the evidence shows that Trump wanted the mob to do what it did? Trump was involved in planning the event and then he spent over 3 hours twiddling his thumbs while the mob trashed Congress. Trump participated in the fake electors scheme, which is good evidence that he was intending to overthrow the transfer of power. Did you bother reading the 100 page legal analysis that they discussed? By the way, the 14th Amendment Section 3 says: "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof", so even if you claim that Trump didn't directly participate in the insurrection, he did give "aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" by his actions.
To make that case -- that Trump participated in the violence -- is unnecessary, and so no one with any sense or understanding of the subject would even bother to try. The insurrection case against his ballot application, however, is already closed. Signed and sealed, upheld on appeal.
The case has been made in the Congressional report, the Colorado Supreme Court case, etc. Trump's participation in the subversion of the constitution through insurrection is a matter of public record now.
No one says that Trump participated directly. They say he incited the riot, and that "aid and comfort" is consistently a broader category (in legal usage) than "incitement".
This was not an insurrection which is why the right has a hard time buying the argument. If you were to frame it as it was, a violent, property damaging, terrorizing protest, you would convince more people of his unfitness for office. He states with this protest he is willing to burn the whole thing down if he doesn't get his way. And if he does get his way, look out because he is probably looking for retribution. I don't know why it is those who are making fairly good money would want to do that but there has got to be a better way. Why is it the far right has an issue with a more socialized system that does reward everyone who works but still inspires and enables to those who would reach higher. Fear of a loss of control and hegemony amongst a certain group. Not the type of authoritarian regime we aspire to be.
Storming the capital in an attempt to prevent the transfer of power is not an insurrection? They were literally trying to prevent the elected government from being able to take power, meaning that they were trying to overthrow democracy.
"This was not an insurrection ..." Who are you to say what is, and what isn't, an insurrection? Your credibility on the subject -- compared with a court of competent jurisdiction -- is exactly zero. After a 5-day very-public trial -- with subject-matter expert witnesses, on-scene witnesses, legal experts -- all under oath -- and hundreds of documents examined -- the court ruled that an insurrection had indeed occurred and that Drumpf's incitement of it and participation in it had been "proven by clear and convincing evidence," the highest evidenciary standard in civil law. This finding-of-fact was then subsequently upheld on appeal by the state's Supreme Court 7-0. That established legal fact is durable, indelible, and portable. It can be cited in any other court as 'persuasive evidence.' Yet you don't even bother to mention it.
yes i love when they claim that based on not a single piece of evidence, all after he hasnt been convicted or even accused of attempting an insurrectio...@@patrickburke6789
That's a simple question and it has a simple answer. Yes, he should be barred. No need to waste an hour of your life. You have your answer. Spend that hour reading our constitution if you do not agree.
preserve democracy by eliminating democracy...makes sense
David French and the conservative case for far-left dictatorship.
David French and the conservative case for gay race communism.
He should be taken off if the opposing party doesn't like him of course
The democrats are so afraid😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
You would be too if you weren't a partisan hack
How so? Trump is running scared of the DC case, the GA case, andnthe documents case. Democrats won't be found guilty for any of that.
It was Republicans from the Federalist Society who started the process to kick him off the ballots in the states. They are Constitutional Purist. So no. Democrats aren't scared like MAGA is.
No, that would be illegal, immoral and unethical. What an easy question. Even asking it shows a level of criminal corruption.
I think Trump is horrible, but I don't agree that purpose plus violence automatically equals insurrection. That's the formula that was given in the podcast, to justify calling a riot an insurrection. So let's take that formula at face value: Suppose that instead of a riot following incitement to riot, there had been a conspiracy for the same purposes, but it only consisted of two people, one of whom did nothing but conspire and incite, and the other of whom did nothing more than slap a capitol police officer. A slap is violence, so the test, as stated, would have been met.
We can say that this scenario would amount to insurrection. Or we can say that there is a question of how much violence it takes (given suitable motivation) to add up to an insurrection. Maybe there's a historical record, from which it's obvious that a riot, on one day in one location, is enough to meet the threshold. But if so, why not present that record? Quote some legislative history, where the members of Congress who voted to submit the 14th to the states for ratification mentioned a one-time one-location riot, and called it insurrection.
To me, it's clear that the amendment does not refer exclusively to the Civil War, but rather to anything that's in the same category with the Civil War -- while leaving it open how large that category is.
Trump has never even been charged with insurrection, much less tried or convicted. These attempts to get him off the ballot are a joke. I'm no MAGA head
You seem to be blissfully unaware that Drumpf's insurrection is now a matter of established legal fact.
Following a 5-day public trial, the District Court in Colorado ruled that the allegations of insurrection and Drumpf's incitement of it and participation in it had been "proven by clear and convincing evidence." That ruling was subsequently upheld on appeal 7-0 by the state Supreme Court.
So your meandering ruminations are fairly well obliterated.
@@user-tf4ho2uo1e The constitution does not require Trump to be convicted. His planning, incitement and abetting of the insurrection is a matter of public record.
@@comets4sale where was the insurrection? where was the plan to kidnap or kill congress? where was the plan for the new government to be put in place? that was not an insurrection. it was a delusional protest that got out of hand and became a riot.
Oh my gosh, this is an amazing podcast! I've been a fan of David French for years, and it's amazing to see him put his skills and knowledge to such timely use. Thanks for having him on the show, Ezra!
I can imagine that a far-leftist would be a fan of David French.
Can you explain how he’s an insurrectionist having never been charged, or put on trial for insurrection.
That was thoroughly covered in the interview. Give it another listen.
(Monty Python Villagers vs. the Made-up Witch voice): " 'e LOOKS like one!"
The supreme Court should take him down before he takes America down.
If the supreme court bars him from the ballot there will be a civil war.
this would not be a free and fair election then.
What are you a12year old girl playing video games and you think you're an expert on the happening of the world 🤣😂@@twelvecatsinatrenchcoat
I hope y’all listened to the podcast.
@@matthewstearns289 What a strange comment to make.
Yes, I think trump can/should be barred from office. But the problem with my view is, I'm looking at the evidence logically. I'm not looking at trump as a surrogate "daddy" who is going to "save" the country.
yes i love when they claim that based on not a single piece of evidence, all after he hasnt been convicted or even accused of attempting an insurrectio...
@@wasdwasdedsf- Why not? Because he keeps trying to delay the trial that could convict him of such.
@@BurrQ19 hows he trying to delay the trial?
and do you haev any argument for how he supposedly did what they claim
@wasdwasdedsf - I have many discussions and debates going on at the moment. Trump is actively doing his best to delay all of his court dates concerning the indictments in DC, documents case, and the GA case.
Why would he be claiming presidential immunity and, at the same time, say he never took an oath to preserve and uphold the Constitution?
@@BurrQ19 presidential immunity is against the constitution, and if one claims to be in favour of preserving and upholidng the constitution, one can thus not claim presidential immunity?
YES!
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:53 🎙️ *The political moment is marked by Trump's significant lead in polls, making him the likely Republican nominee, but simultaneously facing legal and constitutional challenges.*
01:34 🏛️ *The Colorado Supreme Court ruled Trump disqualified from the ballot due to his actions on January 6, based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.*
02:02 ⚖️ *Trump faces four criminal suits with over 90 charges, leading to legal and constitutional troubles despite his strong political standing.*
03:12 🗳️ *The discussion revolves around whether Trump should be allowed on the 2024 ballot, posing a conflict between democratic processes and constitutional guardrails.*
03:43 🤔 *The Colorado Supreme Court's reasoning relies on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, disqualifying Trump for engaging in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution.*
05:32 🛡️ *Section 3 is considered an anti-democratic provision, a counter-majoritarian element preventing insurrectionists from holding office, acknowledging the need for certain limits in a democracy.*
08:56 📜 *The historical context of Section 3 emerges from post-Civil War challenges, aiming to prevent former Confederates involved in insurrection from returning to government without Congressional approval.*
10:07 📖 *Legal scholars, Bod and Paulson, argue that Section 3 applies to Trump through originalist interpretation, examining historical public meaning to include events like January 6.*
13:10 📚 *The definition of insurrection at the time was broad enough to encompass the violent attack on January 6, addressing concerns of political violence disrupting governance.*
16:37 ⚖️ *Trump's involvement in legal subterfuge and the January 6 events is highlighted, challenging the notion that his actions were within the bounds of lawful protest or political disagreement.*
19:51 🤔 *Intent and belief in election fraud are discussed; however, criminal statutes differ from Section 3, which doesn't require a criminal conviction.*
22:27 🏛️ *Section 3 doesn't necessitate a criminal conviction, and its historical context differs from post-Civil War amnesty, making it more applicable to Trump's actions on January 6.*
23:50 🏛️ *The self-executing nature of Section 3 is debated, questioning whether Congress needs to enact legislation to define circumstances and standards for its application.*
24:03 📜 *The 14th Amendment allows disqualification of a candidate for engaging in insurrection or rebellion without requiring a criminal conviction.*
25:12 🗽 *Due process for presidential candidates is tied to the strength of the liberty interest involved, which is lower for running for office compared to criminal cases.*
28:52 🇺🇸 *The 14th Amendment creates a presumption against eligibility for individuals engaged in insurrection or rebellion, aiming to prevent them from regaining access to government.*
32:53 ⚖️ *The Supreme Court faces a heavy lift in declaring a presidential candidate disqualified, but historical precedents show instances where it acted against unjust systems.*
39:19 🔍 *Donald Trump's disruptive behavior shapes the institutional responses, making them seem more oppositional, and he often capitalizes on this dynamic for political narratives.*
43:32 🤔 *Disqualifying Trump may be the most stabilizing option, considering the potential for turmoil if he wins and responds with retribution, or if he loses, triggering unrest as seen after the 2020 election.*
48:47 🏛️ *Trump is distancing himself from Republican establishment figures and the Federalist Society, emphasizing a different approach if re-elected.*
49:27 ⚔️ *Trump's allies consider invoking the Insurrection Act on day one, giving the president significant power to control military forces.*
50:08 🔥 *Concerns arise about the potential danger in having an insurrectionist leading the most powerful military globally.*
51:28 🤝 *Transition from a coalition government to a non-coalition government, with MAGA dominating, poses challenges to checks and balances.*
52:51 😠 *MAGA supporters are more radicalized and angrier than before, creating challenges in addressing political polarization.*
54:19 ⚖️ *Trump's legal argument for presidential immunity in court faces skepticism; a delay tactic rather than a strong defense.*
55:55 🔄 *Trump's claim that impeachment is the sole remedy for presidential misconduct is viewed as near-frivolous.*
57:20 ⚖️ *Four criminal cases against Trump with internal indictments involve hush money, classified documents, and January 6.*
58:55 🌐 *Multiple potential destabilizing scenarios if Trump, even with convictions, is allowed to run for president again.*
59:23 📚 *Book recommendations: "Operation Pedestal" by Max Hastings, "Into the Heart of Romans" by NT Wright, and "Manhunt" by James Swanson.*
Made with HARPA AI
This pod: essential listen! We're at such a critical tipping point. Hope SCOTUS listens...
How so? It is Constitutional pursuit Federalist Society Republicans who started the efforts to kick Trump off the ballot.
Democrats are only there to follow the 14th Amendment Section 3. It's Constitutional. Not political.
The one is is scared of accountability is Trump and his swallowers, as he is actively trying to delay the DC case, the GA case, and documents case that would be able to prove that he is guilty of insurrection, election tampering, and usurping put national security.
If he had contact with any of those who have been convicted of seditious conspiracy, then he's guilty of insurrection. It's clear as day
According to the Constitution of the United States of America, he has disqualified himself and therefore can not be included on any ballot for any political office within the country.
Only one party was to ban Trump The democrats They are also kicking other democrats running against Biden off the ballot How is this saving our democracy
Except thats just your opinion not a fact 🤣🤡
Joe Biden is also disqualified.
@@jhl72 The equivalent of saying "na-na na-na boo-boo". I know it's not true, you know it's not true. Find a better argument.
yes i love when they claim that based on not a single piece of evidence, all after he hasnt been convicted or even accused of attempting an insurrectio...
Innocent until proven guilty, unless its not a democrat huh? 🤣🤣
"Innocent until proven guilty" isn't what the 14th Amendment Section 3 requires. It doesn't require a formal trial to determine Trump's guilt. At this point, it will be left to the Supreme Court to determine if it requires any due process at all, but the Amendment's text is clear that it doesn't require a trial or conviction. However, I don't think there is much doubt about Trump's actions on Jan 6 and the ways that he provided "aid or comfort to the enemies". There may be some questions about all the ways he participated in the fake elector's scheme, but after all the evidence presented by the House's investigation, we already have enough evidence of what Trump did, without needing the Georgia case to conclude.
Do ya'll even realize how un-democratic you're being? You keep accusing him of trying to steal an election, while you're trying to steal an election.@@amosbatto3051
@@amosbatto3051right YOU get to decide. There you have it gentlemen, what more evidence do we need. Judas thank you for the victim, stay awhile and you'll see him bleed
The 14th Amendment section 3 doesn't require that.
But if that is what YOU require, then are you behind any of Trumps tactics to delay the DC court case, GA court case, and documents case that would be able to convict him for insurrection, election tampering, and usurping the USA national security?
People who are behind those actions are not really for America. They are fake.
Yes. It’s not a political question. It’s a constitutional question & we should not be cherry picking amendments. He’s qualified or he is not. If the states determine he incited, supported, or participated in the insurrection they should not be prevented from barring him from eligibility.
That would be the logical interpretation of the text, but with the right-wing ideologues on the current Supreme Court, it is almost impossible to say whether they will do a literal reading of the 14th Amendment. Frankly, if the Supreme Court rules that Colorado isn't allowed to bar Trump from the ballot, I believe that it will undermine the credible of the Supreme Court, because it will reveal that they are just partisan ideologues who have no fidelity to the written text in the Constitution.
yes i love when they claim that based on not a single piece of evidence, all after he hasnt been convicted or even accused of attempting an insurrectio...
@@wasdwasdedsf Your imagination says: "based on not a single piece of evidence..."
Factual Reality says: 5-day very-public trial, with witnesses, experts, legal scholars, hundreds of documents, video & audio recordings, trial transcripts, etc., etc.... altogether sufficient to result in the trial court ruling that the insurrection and Drumpf 's integral part in it had been "proven by clear and convincing evidence." Then, that trial court's finding-of-fact was subsequently upheld 7-0 by the state Supreme Court.
If there could possibly be a larger, wider, deeper gap between actual factual reality and your ill-informed imagination, I can't even begin to imagine how.
Next: You imagine that lack of criminal conviction is relevant somehow. It isn't. It's just a meaningless noise.
Clearly this is nothing but a political issue. There is no originalist interpretation here. What a facade!
Surprise surprise. The Left wants to use undemocratic means to get their opponents thrown off the ballot.
The answer is no because he represents half the country
Are insurrectionists entitled to Secret Service protection?
Fedsurrection, try to keep up.
Mr. Klein: I would love an episode on how Justices are appointed and confirmed; how long they stay Justices and a comparison between the US and other major countries.
I'm from Brazil and we copied your SCOTUS (president appoints and senate confirm for a term that ends with death or retirement) and the problem we've been facing is the Constitutional Court (The Supreme Federal Tribunal - STF) ends up reaching decisions that often are good for politicians and that change according to the everyday political flavors and moods of the people who apointed and confirmed the justices.
In Brazil a convict have the right to appeal to 3 courts after a first conviction. Also, convicts can only go to jail after "due process and ample defense". The problem is "what's due process and ample defense?". If that's understood as a conviction by the Superior Justice Tribunal (STJ) then no one will ever be jailed. The fact is most people can't afford to even an appeal to reach the first level of appeal (second instance, as we say here) and therefore the understanding equals a out of jail card for those who can afford and is meaningless to those who can't.
The question as put to the Constitutional Court some years ago and they reached an understanding that a conviction on the first level of appeal mean "the due process and ample defense" has been met and the person can be sent to jail. Then, the issue was once more put to the Constitutional Court - when a lot of politicians were being sent to jail during the Car Wash operation, including Pres. Lula - and original understanding (3rd level of appeal) came back! Now ... the justices changed but the interpretation was only approved because the most senior justice, Gilmar Mendes, changed his opinion!
During Lula's first two terms, the Court behaved highly independtently - including the Chief Justice, a black law scholar appointed by Lula, Joaquim Barbosa. The Court overal behavior was a result of the justices personalities but also of puplic pressure. For a while we stopped thinking about the fact that those Justices - the only ones, in Brazil, who can judge important and specific cases against elected politicians - was composed of people appointed and confirmed by politicians! When Justice Mendes changed his opinion the preocupation resurfaced and after Bolsonaro's election it got even worse because the Court decided it should stop Bolsonaro and, to do that, helping clear a former Corruption convict who spent time in jail - Lula - was ok. Some of those Justices acted - though in a misguided manner, imho - honestly but few of them may have not acted honestly and may actually be working to re-stablish the systemic corruption system between the Executive and Legislative.
What a lot of law scholars argue is that the problem of Justices working for those who appointed and confirmed them - a problem that, afaik, only now happened in the US - comes from how they are appointed and confirmed, from the fact that anyone can fill the position and the lifelong term. I know there are other systems, like the German one, where Justices serve for 12 years and other differences.
I hope you can do an episode because when people like Bolsonaro or Trump are around, people start to think only in the very short term and end up accepting very bad solutions.
Hello Brazilian brother, I live in Australia, and as far as I am concerned, the entire legal system is a sham, its main function is to legitimize the usurpation of the land and it resources by multinational polluters, and is why we have no power to control what is done to the environment. We are still the landless powerless serfs we have always been.
If the Justices fulfilled their "sacred" duties, the entire executive of the USA, UK and Australia would be rotting away in jail for war crimes. I am particularly appalled how Western populations continue to enable war crimes at the ballot box. Biden recently went to Israel declaring his full support for Israel demonizing the Palestinian people as collectively being as evil as ISIS. Without the 3 billion a year that the US gives to Israel (1.8 billion of it spent on military hardware) its economy would collapse, while Democrats in America are advocating a "Blue" vote as a vote for a free and democratic America, that is tantamount to signing the death warrants of more innocent Palestinians. Its all short term thinking in the west based upon, what is best for me now....and bugger everyone else. As long as this BS system of BS nation states, and BS money remains in place, our extinction, and the majority of life on the planet is fait accompli.
How slippery is Section 3? If SCOTUS upholds the Colorado finding that Trump engaged in insurrection, but allows Trump to appear on the ballot, is SCOTUS providing aid and comfort and violating their own oath of office?
The SCOC(Colorado) and SCOTUS are two different supreme courts. The president of the USA is not an officer. The insurrection clause of A14 DOES NOT apply to presidents. SCOTUS will find in favor of the 47th president of the USA AKA Donald Trump
@@videowatchaccount7551 Ridiculous. The text 'office of president' occurs 9 times in the constitution, including the oath of office. The 14th amendment section 3 concerns what happens if that oath is broken. The literal definition of an officer is one who holds office. This SCOTUS can't ignore the black letter of the Constitution.
great
Yes
This is the same problem as why I think it's wrong to say that felon's can't vote. Because if you have so many felons that it's a problem, maybe the party in power *should* be removed. Because if you just let Trump make enough people be felons so he can't lose anymore, that's not a good outcome.
This was an absorbing listen. Could we have a discussion on the SCOTUS at some point? What are the chances of term limits and expansion of the bench?
And the new york times, they should have a say in who is eligible. Bezos blog as well.
Why do they just skip over the fact that Trump hasn't been convicted of Insurrection?
According to Article #14 of the constitution of the United States of America, there is no requirement for a trial or vote of judgment. It is "self-evident" and universally known.
@@CollectiveWesterner Yeah but it seems less than 50% of your country believes it to be 'self evident' so it cannot be universally known. For something to be 'universally known' then you would need a very large % of the population to agree. Yes? That's the crux of the issue
@thomasshotter9023 There is roughly 30% - 35% of the citizenry who try to protect their cult leader, but with all of the extensive video recordings, bipartisan congregational investigation and report, as well as the testimonies of thousands of victims and police present that day. Also included in the tsunami of evidence would be the testimonies of the family members of people who died because of the insurrection.
@thomasshotter9023 One other thing worth mentioning....1,200+ of the anti-American insurrectionists have been charged with their crimes, and over 900+ are currently in prison. (It would be impossible to imprison a thousand citizens if it was not accepted as fact that Trump's attempted violent coup to remain in power was an insurrection.)
You've overestimated the number dramatically. @@thomasshotter9023
Man 1 hour talking s*** about him and I still don't believe most of what he's saying. I'm getting a disingenuous vibe from him.
I'm not a citizen of nor live in the US. I'm from Latin America.
The legal opinion from the originalists is interesting and it may point twards an eventual SCOTUS decision agreeing with the opinion. That's would mean the definition of insurrection or rebellion will change.
I do agree with a lot of what the MAGA people - and Mr. Klein position when playing devil's advocate - but in case the understanding of what insurrection or rebellion is changes, that won't matter.
I find Mr. French's position that speech inciting violence doesn't require a high burden of proof to be quite dangerous. According to Prof. Kim Lane Scheppele (as I tunderstand her positions on the Orban case and how he manage to it legally) that would open dangerous doors - more dangerous than an eventual Trump re-election. That could make something like "We all must enter congress and go to every Representative and Senator's office to try and convince them not to vote for the bill" into a violence inciting speech.
I find important to note, also, that a democracy without counter majoritan legislation is no democracy at all.
The fact this is even being asked proves what a banana republic both parties in America trying to make it. Rules based order my ass!
Good conversation- nice back and forth ! Need more polite debates !
I think the New York Times Podcasts should be closed
The statement that section 3 is anti-democratic is absolute crap. It's a guardrail they put in, AND, they offered a remedy for the person... 2/3's of Congress can override. It's more democratic than the other two provisions limiting who can run. Sheesh! French is a smart guy but not on this one.
I dont know should something be done about the border?
This analysis is on point!
Two pseudo intellectuals making agitprop for the deep state coup de etat
Read the 14th amendent article 3 and you tell me😅
This was an excellent podcast.
39:10 Excellent point. Mrl Klein!
Nobody who is MEAN and BAD shood be allowed to hold office in OUR DEMOCRACY !!!!
Who decides whom is "Mean and Bad"?
You mean, nobody who subverts the constitution, seeks to overthrow an election, and to unjustly and illegally stay in power.....
I needed to hear this podcast.
The Toilet paper of record.
thank you for this
Fascists unite😂🎉
Noooooo
The fact that he's not just goes to show wypipo don't want to learn what accountability is so that means we don't have to either right 🙏🙏🙏
No
💜
This may be the best podcast out there on this issue--get the word out!
Stop with the feckless rules lawyering.
Stop trying to win with loopholes.
Stop thinking like smart people and start thinking how stupid or malicious people could abuse this.
Intelligence is a circle. It's absolutely possible, and increasingly common, to think so hard about an idea, to inject so much complexity into your thought process, that you leave simple common sense behind. You wrap back around to the wrong end of the circle. You get so disconnected from reality doing mental gymnastics that your behavior stops being intelligent.
You start doing things like saying "that's a context dependent decission" when Congress asks you if calling for genocide is bullying.
Sorry but this guy did not make the case at all the Trump participated in the violence. That was an incredibly weak argument and demonstrates why, unfortunately, there is no case against him.
Did you bother listening to the podcast, where they talked about all the ways that Trump incited the mob on Jan 6, and the preponderance of the evidence shows that Trump wanted the mob to do what it did? Trump was involved in planning the event and then he spent over 3 hours twiddling his thumbs while the mob trashed Congress. Trump participated in the fake electors scheme, which is good evidence that he was intending to overthrow the transfer of power. Did you bother reading the 100 page legal analysis that they discussed? By the way, the 14th Amendment Section 3 says: "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof", so even if you claim that Trump didn't directly participate in the insurrection, he did give "aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" by his actions.
To make that case -- that Trump participated in the violence -- is unnecessary, and so no one with any sense or understanding of the subject would even bother to try.
The insurrection case against his ballot application, however, is already closed. Signed and sealed, upheld on appeal.
The case has been made in the Congressional report, the Colorado Supreme Court case, etc. Trump's participation in the subversion of the constitution through insurrection is a matter of public record now.
No one says that Trump participated directly. They say he incited the riot, and that "aid and comfort" is consistently a broader category (in legal usage) than "incitement".
@@patrickburke6789you're kind of forgetting about the supreme Court of the us of a Skippy
Do you even have to ask?
Anathema maranatha (athiests)
This was not an insurrection which is why the right has a hard time buying the argument. If you were to frame it as it was, a violent, property damaging, terrorizing protest, you would convince more people of his unfitness for office. He states with this protest he is willing to burn the whole thing down if he doesn't get his way. And if he does get his way, look out because he is probably looking for retribution. I don't know why it is those who are making fairly good money would want to do that but there has got to be a better way. Why is it the far right has an issue with a more socialized system that does reward everyone who works but still inspires and enables to those who would reach higher. Fear of a loss of control and hegemony amongst a certain group. Not the type of authoritarian regime we aspire to be.
Storming the capital in an attempt to prevent the transfer of power is not an insurrection? They were literally trying to prevent the elected government from being able to take power, meaning that they were trying to overthrow democracy.
"This was not an insurrection ..."
Who are you to say what is, and what isn't, an insurrection? Your credibility on the subject -- compared with a court of competent jurisdiction -- is exactly zero.
After a 5-day very-public trial -- with subject-matter expert witnesses, on-scene witnesses, legal experts -- all under oath -- and hundreds of documents examined -- the court ruled that an insurrection had indeed occurred and that Drumpf's incitement of it and participation in it had been "proven by clear and convincing evidence," the highest evidenciary standard in civil law. This finding-of-fact was then subsequently upheld on appeal by the state's Supreme Court 7-0.
That established legal fact is durable, indelible, and portable. It can be cited in any other court as 'persuasive evidence.' Yet you don't even bother to mention it.
The fact of the insurrection is a matter of public record, whether some/many on the right accept it or not.
yes i love when they claim that based on not a single piece of evidence, all after he hasnt been convicted or even accused of attempting an insurrectio...@@patrickburke6789
@@comets4sale oh is it, what public record showed that it was an insurrection?
That's a simple question and it has a simple answer. Yes, he should be barred. No need to waste an hour of your life. You have your answer. Spend that hour reading our constitution if you do not agree.
Oh you’re a constitution aficionado are you?