Well said. I disagree on some pertinent facts (I'm not convinced the January 6th riot was an insurrection, or that Trump participated in it), but I fully endorse your reasoning here. If the Constitution does disqualify someone, then it should and must be followed.
As a sidenote, I think you're counting the twenty-one disqualified ghosts wrongly. By my counting, only thirteen dead Presidents actually served more than one and a half terms in office - and then we need to leave out Truman, as the Twenty-Second Amendment explicitly exempted him.
(As even more of a sidenote, I was musing over whether the Constitution actually prevents someone who's dead from being President. I don't think he'd be technically disqualified, but under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, his Vice-President would immediately succeed to the office.)
You're right that 21 is wrong, and I'm correcting the article. I think the correct number is 15: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Grant, Cleveland, Wilson, Eisenhower, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Washington, and Teddy Roosevelt. I'll hate if that's wrong, too, but tell me if it is!
The ABSOLUTE exemption offered by the 22nd Amendment surprised me, but, you're absolutely right, Truman is exempt. (I had it in my head that the amendment included a carveout allowing Truman to get elected twice and THEN term-limited him, but that's not what it says!) If we could actually resurrect Truman and/or the Constitution remains in force after the Christian apocalypse and final judgment, Truman could serve as President of the United States *for all eternity*! Take THAT, FDR!
(If we elect a dead person -- which is not a weird a possibility as it sounds, considering the electoral college vote of 1872, when Democratic candidate Horace Greeley died post-election -- then I'm not sure the 25th Amendment helps, because it only kicks when when a president is *removed* from office by the event of death. If the candidate is already dead, the event of death doesn't happen while he holds the office. But the 20th Amendment, Section 3, says, "If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President." I think that works!)
Constitutional Republic is a tautology. The founders used the term "federal Republic" because saying "constitutional Republic" is like saying "wet water"...
Otherwise, great article. If this topic is one you intend to keep covering, you should look into the role federalism plays in Presidential elections. The Constitution delegates plenary power to the States to make election rules and regulations. You don't need to get to 14th amendment to find the power to do this. Amendments 10 and 12 already delegate our State the right to regulate these issues.
Especially in the case of presidential elector selection, where Article II is unambiguous and absolute! The RNC filed a brief yesterday saying that Congress has "pre-empted the field of resolving disputes over the eligibility of Presidential candidates," and I'm like, hoo boy, y'all know state legislatures could pass a law putting one and only one name on a presidential ballot for any or no reason, right? Ya'll know South Carolina didn't hold statewide popular presidential elections until after the Civil War?
Well, they didn't develop the argument in their initial brief, so we'll see where they take it next.
Footnote 7 was a really good one! I hadn’t thought of that reasoning for some of those requirements… I’m excited to read on to the next installment!
Also, to the fellow reader who sent in: “I bow to no one in my hatred of Trump... But you have found the one thing that would make me vote for him.” I imagine there are many within the nation who would never vote for Trump regardless of the circumstances or the alternatives or ramifications purely out of spite for Trump. Not saying you don’t also share a hatred for Trump but you must admit that there are some you could bow too in the hatred-lympics if there are still some scenarios you would consider casting a vote for him with.
Amar's whole book (America's Constitution: A Biography) is worth a read. It's nothing but surprising things like that, from beginning to end. It helps that Amar studiously avoids taking sides in any of the *modern* conlaw debates, like originalism vs. its alternatives. He's just there to tell you the legal history, and it's great.
Regarding your comment to the fellow reader (NB: I am not that particular reader!)
Allow me to paint the scenario in a different theater. Suppose one season the Boston Red Sox needed the New York Yankees to beat the Toronto Blue Jays in order for the Red Sox to clinch the division. Our hypothetical Red Sox fan, whose hatred of the damn Yankees knows no bounds, would probably wish for the Yankees to beat the Blue Jays on that day without lessening his hatred for them. He will likely not enjoy rooting for the evil empire, but he will probably not allow his hatred to want him to root against his hated foe at the expense of his own team.
I believe that our fellow reader sees the Trump situation similarly.
Oh for sure! (And such an elegant analogy as well) I was just on hyperbole-watch for some reason when I read that comment. There seem to be all sorts of people from all sorts of walks of life who preface “I’m about to do <x>” with “you know I’m the LAST person who would ever do <x> but <reasons>”.
Well said. I disagree on some pertinent facts (I'm not convinced the January 6th riot was an insurrection, or that Trump participated in it), but I fully endorse your reasoning here. If the Constitution does disqualify someone, then it should and must be followed.
As a sidenote, I think you're counting the twenty-one disqualified ghosts wrongly. By my counting, only thirteen dead Presidents actually served more than one and a half terms in office - and then we need to leave out Truman, as the Twenty-Second Amendment explicitly exempted him.
(As even more of a sidenote, I was musing over whether the Constitution actually prevents someone who's dead from being President. I don't think he'd be technically disqualified, but under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, his Vice-President would immediately succeed to the office.)
You're right that 21 is wrong, and I'm correcting the article. I think the correct number is 15: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Grant, Cleveland, Wilson, Eisenhower, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Washington, and Teddy Roosevelt. I'll hate if that's wrong, too, but tell me if it is!
The ABSOLUTE exemption offered by the 22nd Amendment surprised me, but, you're absolutely right, Truman is exempt. (I had it in my head that the amendment included a carveout allowing Truman to get elected twice and THEN term-limited him, but that's not what it says!) If we could actually resurrect Truman and/or the Constitution remains in force after the Christian apocalypse and final judgment, Truman could serve as President of the United States *for all eternity*! Take THAT, FDR!
(If we elect a dead person -- which is not a weird a possibility as it sounds, considering the electoral college vote of 1872, when Democratic candidate Horace Greeley died post-election -- then I'm not sure the 25th Amendment helps, because it only kicks when when a president is *removed* from office by the event of death. If the candidate is already dead, the event of death doesn't happen while he holds the office. But the 20th Amendment, Section 3, says, "If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President." I think that works!)
Constitutional Republic is a tautology. The founders used the term "federal Republic" because saying "constitutional Republic" is like saying "wet water"...
Otherwise, great article. If this topic is one you intend to keep covering, you should look into the role federalism plays in Presidential elections. The Constitution delegates plenary power to the States to make election rules and regulations. You don't need to get to 14th amendment to find the power to do this. Amendments 10 and 12 already delegate our State the right to regulate these issues.
Especially in the case of presidential elector selection, where Article II is unambiguous and absolute! The RNC filed a brief yesterday saying that Congress has "pre-empted the field of resolving disputes over the eligibility of Presidential candidates," and I'm like, hoo boy, y'all know state legislatures could pass a law putting one and only one name on a presidential ballot for any or no reason, right? Ya'll know South Carolina didn't hold statewide popular presidential elections until after the Civil War?
Well, they didn't develop the argument in their initial brief, so we'll see where they take it next.
This is indeed a rich topic with endless avenues to explore.
I just refuse to go near any topic related to Donald Trump and leave it to braver men such as yourself to take on...
Footnote 7 was a really good one! I hadn’t thought of that reasoning for some of those requirements… I’m excited to read on to the next installment!
Also, to the fellow reader who sent in: “I bow to no one in my hatred of Trump... But you have found the one thing that would make me vote for him.” I imagine there are many within the nation who would never vote for Trump regardless of the circumstances or the alternatives or ramifications purely out of spite for Trump. Not saying you don’t also share a hatred for Trump but you must admit that there are some you could bow too in the hatred-lympics if there are still some scenarios you would consider casting a vote for him with.
Amar's whole book (America's Constitution: A Biography) is worth a read. It's nothing but surprising things like that, from beginning to end. It helps that Amar studiously avoids taking sides in any of the *modern* conlaw debates, like originalism vs. its alternatives. He's just there to tell you the legal history, and it's great.
Regarding your comment to the fellow reader (NB: I am not that particular reader!)
Allow me to paint the scenario in a different theater. Suppose one season the Boston Red Sox needed the New York Yankees to beat the Toronto Blue Jays in order for the Red Sox to clinch the division. Our hypothetical Red Sox fan, whose hatred of the damn Yankees knows no bounds, would probably wish for the Yankees to beat the Blue Jays on that day without lessening his hatred for them. He will likely not enjoy rooting for the evil empire, but he will probably not allow his hatred to want him to root against his hated foe at the expense of his own team.
I believe that our fellow reader sees the Trump situation similarly.
Oh for sure! (And such an elegant analogy as well) I was just on hyperbole-watch for some reason when I read that comment. There seem to be all sorts of people from all sorts of walks of life who preface “I’m about to do <x>” with “you know I’m the LAST person who would ever do <x> but <reasons>”.