These debates provided evidence that illustrates the GOP’s decline over the past 20 years (at least!). From what we saw, there are literally no viable presidential candidates in the entire party(!).
The entire GOP is dominated by a carnival barker who is clever and nasty enough to manipulate everyone else into line — and that’s just about it. Ironically, McCarthy is the model for what passes as (faux) “competence” in the the current GOP.
Maybe, if it turns into such a boring-ass race that all of Uncle Joe’s 14 million extra 2020 voters stay home. But nominating a “normie” Republican keeps trump’s 11 million extra 2020 voters at home too. And returning to that pre-2020 baseline means the GOP loses.
I worry about the nature of the Electoral College… Even a “normie” GOP Candidate might win Wisconsin, and almost certainly would win Georgia. I fear Arizona is anyone’s guess… I hope Pennsylvania will go blue, but I don’t suppose that’s a sure thing. Iowa, which went twice for Obama, (go figure), also went twice for Trump, so I think we’re not a swing state, anymore. On the other hand, MIchigan ain’t a swing state anymore, either, and it has rather more electors than Iowa.
But… That is really the only way that the disqualification clause can work… Any time that a state or federal official is called upon to make a decision as to Trump’s constitutional qualifications to hold the office he is seeking, they have it within their power to say ‘no’, he is not qualified. This can apply to every constitutionally empowered decision maker (someone that harneses the power of the state after swearing an oath to preserve, protect and defend the US Constitution). This would cover everyone from the State’s SoS to electoral college members, to federal legislators to the chief justice that would swear him in. And per the amendment, once they say no, the only way to remove that disability is by a 2/3rds vote from both houses of congress.
Can the courts rule solely on whether or not TFG was involved in an insurrection, strictly as a fact determination, and expressly leave to Congress &/or S’soS whether that is disqualifying in this particular case?
A “normie” GOP candidate likely loses Texas next year. Biden 2020 outperformed Trump 2016 and Romney 2012 by about 600,000 votes.
Is banishment of a citizen to some remote island without any cell reception or chef supplied meal still allowed? I’m day dreaming of sending trump to one of the chain of islands west of Alaska.
Well, txlawyer, you’re free to file an Amicus brief arguing that the courts have no say in the matter and it’s only up to Congress. But I doubt that position would prevail because the text of 14.3 also denies state offices to insurrectionist who had taken an oath to defend the Constitution, and it’s hard to see how Congress would have to get involved in denying state offices. I figure that that would be left to the states to enforce because the US Constitution’s provisions can be adjudicated in state courts as well as federal courts.
Which ALSO defeats your argument that only Congress can activate 14.3 to deny offices. States determine ballot access requirements and state (and federal) courts decide cases and controversies under those laws, which can include arguments related to the US Constitution.
Further, as we’ve argue this point before, if a person IS denied ballot access under 14.3 by the laws in a state giving that power to, say, a Secretary of State, keeping courts out of determining 14.3 applicability to an individual would mean that only Congress can overrule that decision since that IS explicit in the Constitution whereas denial of office under 14.3 is not explicit, as you’ve conceded.
Hence, your argument reeks of circular reasoning which, I’m sorry to say, might be appealing to some justices. But we will see, won’t we? Ultimately, any state court decision will be appealed to SCOTUS and, I suspect, they will take the appeal.
This might get shutdown any number of ways. But that said, the Disqualification Clause suddenly has relevance to our country’s circumstances today. It is time we start figuring out just that means, so I am really not against this.
If it is, I have a list . . .
Chris “he could be a lot worse” Sununu
Sununu’s electoral success and ranking is based on family name recognition and his regionally required moderation on covid. Democrats in the State grade him on a curve relative to the rest of the Republican party and we support his decision to finally back weed legalization and were especially jazzed about his recent decision to not seek reelection.
The pardox is, If we lived in a world where either could actually win a republican nomination, we’d be in a better place.
That and they were smart enough to know that the Northeast is happy to put a Republican into the Governor’s Mansion, but not likely to send one to Washington again anytime soon…
I think Congress could provide a judiciary-based method of enforcement through their power to enforce the 14th, under Article 5, by appropriate legislation.
Also, it strikes me as somewhat unreasonable to argue that the initial power to decide lies with The Congress, when Section 3 explicitly provides that Congress can grant relief from disqualification by a 2/3 vote in each house. That seems like it would constitute a fairly bizarre procedural map.
Oh goolly gee whillickers, you really got me there. I mean, states totally don’t have political institutions who can be deferred to in order to police their local electeds for 14/3 compliance. 
Yes, but they have not done so except maybe in the one treason/insurrection criminal statute. And Congress is already constitutionally recognized as being responsible for deciding whether a presidential candidate qualifies for the job – see 20th Am., section 3.
Actually, if you read your history, this was addressed by the courts and congress after the 14th amendment was ratified (and before the Amnesty act of 1872 was passed). During that time, the congress and the courts read §3 literally and the duty fell upon congress to pass (or attempt to pass) ‘private bills’ for specific individuals to remove the disability imposed by §3 for all offices state & federal. As a matter of fact, that was part of the motivation for enacting the amnesty act of 1872… Congress felt that the burden upon itself enacting and passing all these ‘private bills’ was too great especially for individuals seeking to run for or hold down ballot offices.
So… what you ‘figure’ may have some merrit from the point of view of pure logistics but it is in conflict with the black letter, plain text of §3 and our history.
You can read a good (if lengthy; 126 pages) discussion of the issues discussed here in Professors Baude & Paulsen’s Pa Law Review Article. and in the Tribe and Luttig article published in the Atlantic back on 19-Aug.
Didn’t say they had. I said it’s not a political question. I think a disqualification now would be politically dangerous, if not disastrous. I also think Congress, should we somehow elect a serious one, should provide a way for the courts to deal with Section Three.
I also think that if it were a political question in the Supreme Court’s sense of the term, the courts would and should stay out of it entirely, rather than, say, ruling that Congress has the power to act on enforcement under Section Five, but hasn’t; and, say, Section Three isn’t self-executing and requires an Act of Congress to be implemented. Same result this time, but better law.
Just my opinion as a lay person these last 24 years.
Ah, but the essence of the “political questions” doctrine is that certain questions can’t be answered by the courts because they’re up to Congress to decide. So deciding the 14/3 eligibility issue is a political question the courts can’t answer automatically means Congress can act on it.
Attu: “Noooooo!”
I’ve got a little list, I’ve got a little list.
I bow to your superior grasp of the issue. 
I guess I would just have asked the court to explain what I should already have understood, i.e. that my result would flow from the application of the doctrine. I admit that Professor Aldave did say I wasn’t the best student she’d ever had. (Although she did once say I was the smartest.) 