Judge Luttig's Surprising Opinion on Trump Disqualification

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Background of Judge Jay Michael Luttig
3. Challenges to Donald Trump's Eligibility to Run for Office
4. The Defense's Argument
5. Misunderstanding of Section Three of the 14th Amendment
6. The Distinction in the Text of the 14th Amendment
7. The Focus on the Capitol Attack
8. Arguments on the Former President's Involvement
9. The Case for Disqualification under Section Three
10. The Role of State Courts and Congress
11. The Proper Institutions to Decide the Case
12. Conclusion

Judge Jay Michael Luttig: A Former Federal Judge on Challenges to Donald Trump's Eligibility

Judge Jay Michael Luttig, a former federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, has been a staunch defender of American democracy. In a recent interview, he discussed the challenges to Donald Trump's eligibility to run for and hold office, shedding light on a specific distinction between the defense's argument and the text of the 14th Amendment.

Background of Judge Jay Michael Luttig

Before delving into the specific arguments, it's important to understand Judge Luttig's background. He served as a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, gaining extensive experience in constitutional law. With his expertise, Judge Luttig offers valuable insights into the legal complexities surrounding the challenges to Trump's eligibility.

Challenges to Donald Trump's Eligibility to Run for Office

The constitutional process to determine whether the former president is disqualified from holding any future office under Section Three of the 14th Amendment has begun. Section Three states that anyone who has previously taken an oath to support the Constitution and thereafter engages in an insurrection or rebellion against it shall be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.

The Defense's Argument

Judge Luttig highlights a specific distinction between what Trump's lawyers are arguing and what is actually written in the text of the 14th Amendment. The defense argues that anyone who engages in an insurrection or rebellion against the United States with the authority of the United States is disqualified under Section Three. However, Judge Luttig argues that the Amendment disqualifies only those who engage in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution, not against the United States or its authority.

Misunderstanding of Section Three of the 14th Amendment

Judge Luttig expresses his concern that all parties involved in these litigations have misunderstood Section Three of the 14th Amendment. The focus has been primarily on whether the attack on the U.S. Capitol constitutes an insurrection or rebellion against the United States. However, Judge Luttig emphasizes that the Relevant distinction lies in whether it was an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution, specifically the executive vesting clause.

The Distinction in the Text of the 14th Amendment

The former president's lawyers have argued that the attack on the Capitol was not an insurrection at all, implying that Trump had no involvement in it. The challenges to Trump's qualifications to hold a future office have largely bought into this argument. However, Judge Luttig contends that the former president's efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and remain in power despite losing his election constituted a rebellion against the Constitution.

The Focus on the Capitol Attack

While discussing the challenges to Trump's eligibility, one of the judges in Minnesota raised the question of whether state officials should be the ones to decide this matter. According to Judge Luttig, the constitutional question of whether the former president engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution falls within the domain of the courts, particularly the Supreme Court.

Arguments on the Former President's Involvement

The arguments presented in these litigations have created confusion among the parties involved and, in turn, have confused the courts. Both Trump's lawyers and those challenging his eligibility have focused almost exclusively on whether the attack on the Capitol constituted an insurrection or rebellion against the United States. However, Judge Luttig asserts that the primary issue is whether the former president engaged in a rebellion against the Constitution by attempting to remain in office despite losing the election.

The Case for Disqualification under Section Three

Judge Luttig makes a compelling case for the former president's disqualification under Section Three. He argues that Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and defy the term limit prescribed by the executive vesting clause of the United States Constitution constituted a rebellion against the Constitution.

The Role of State Courts and Congress

Judge Luttig clarifies that Section Three of the 14th Amendment is self-executing. This means that it does not require a finding by Congress or a criminal conviction for insurrection or rebellion. However, the question of deciding Trump's eligibility ultimately rests with the courts, from the lower courts all the way up to the Supreme Court. This issue is a pure question of constitutional law, and the courts are the proper institutions to address it.

The Proper Institutions to Decide the Case

Contrary to the skepticism expressed by some judges at the state level, the United States Supreme Court is well-equipped to understand and decide this question of constitutional law. As the highest court in the nation, it has the authority to determine whether the former president engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the challenges to Donald Trump's eligibility to run for and hold office have brought to light significant distinctions in the interpretation of Section Three of the 14th Amendment. Judge Jay Michael Luttig emphasizes the importance of understanding that the disqualification pertains to an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution itself, rather than against the United States or its authority. As the legal battle continues, it remains to be seen how the courts, including the Supreme Court, will rule on this crucial matter of constitutional law.

Highlights:

• Judge Jay Michael Luttig sheds light on challenges to Donald Trump's eligibility to run for and hold office.
• The defense argues that Section Three of the 14th Amendment disqualifies anyone who engages in an insurrection or rebellion against the United States with its authority.
• Judge Luttig argues that the disqualification is for those who engage in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution, not against the United States or its authority.
• The focus has been on whether the attack on the U.S. Capitol constituted an insurrection or rebellion against the United States, while the key distinction lies in its effect on the Constitution.
• Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election and remain in power are considered a rebellion against the Constitution, leading to potential disqualification.
• The decision on Trump's eligibility lies with the courts, including the Supreme Court, which has the authority to interpret and Apply Section Three of the 14th Amendment.

FAQ

Q: What is Section Three of the 14th Amendment? A: Section Three of the 14th Amendment states that anyone who has previously taken an oath to support the Constitution and thereafter engages in an insurrection or rebellion against it shall be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.

Q: What distinction does Judge Luttig highlight in the interpretation of Section Three? A: Judge Luttig emphasizes the distinction between engaging in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution itself, rather than against the United States or its authority.

Q: What constitutes a rebellion against the Constitution, according to Judge Luttig? A: Judge Luttig argues that Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election and remain in power despite losing constituted a rebellion against the Constitution, specifically the executive vesting clause.

Q: Who has the authority to decide Trump's eligibility under Section Three? A: The courts, including the Supreme Court, are the proper institutions to decide whether Trump's actions qualify as an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution.

Q: Is Section Three self-executing? A: Yes, Section Three of the 14th Amendment is self-executing, meaning it does not require a finding by Congress or a criminal conviction for insurrection or rebellion.