Law Professor Tells CNN Trump Is Ineligible To Run In 2024 Just Days After the Network’s Legal Analyst Explained Why His Theory Is ‘Wild’
Professor Emeritus Laurence Tribe argued on CNN that Donald Trump is ineligible to run for president again, offering a theory that the network’s own chief legal analyst said is unworkable.
Tribe and former federal Judge Michael Luttig wrote in The Atlantic last week that Trump is constitutionally ineligible to run because of his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, which resulted in his supporters trying to subvert the certification of that contest in the Capitol riot. Trump is currently under federal and state indictment stemming from his post-election actions.
They cite Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which says no person may hold office in the U.S. government if they “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
“The argument is really that the Constitution couldn’t be clearer,” Tribe told Wolf Blitzer on Friday’s edition of The Situation Room. “It talks about insurrection or rebellion. But it also says that if you’ve taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, and thereafter give aid or comfort to the enemies of that Constitution, then you are disqualified, period. So, all of the charges against the president which, at the moment, don’t happen to include insurrection, are really beside the point.”
Blitzer asked Tribe if his theory invites too much subjectivity.
“That’s very interesting, but isn’t this, Professor, an inherently subjective call?” the host asked. “Are you concerned this could potentially be abused down the road?”
“It’s certainly problematic,” Tribe conceded. “But that’s why the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment put in a safeguard. They said, if it’s abused, all you need is two-thirds of each house in order to remove a disability, a disqualification.”
But on Monday, CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig explained the issue with this clause of the Constitution.
“These are two brilliant scholars,” Honig said, referring to Tribe and Luttig. “They’re correct to note that the Fourteenth Amendment rightly bars someone who’s participated in insurrection or rebellion from holding future office. The problem is that the Fourteenth Amendment tells us nothing about how that decision gets made, nor does any caselaw or statute that’s been passed. Does Congress decide? Is it the Senate? Is it the House? Is it a majority? Is it two-thirds? Is it a court? Is it a jury? Is it a judge?”
He then noted the two scholars had posited the idea of a “self-executing” mechanism for adjudicating the matter whether a person has run afoul of the clause.
“And what they propose in the article is they say, ‘Well, it’s self-executing,’ which, that does not do it for me,’” Honig continued. “What they’re proposing essentially is, ‘Well, every state, local, county official who handles ballots will just decide on their own whether he’s disqualified or not.’ That would lead to wild inconsistency and chaos, and I don’t think that’s a viable practical solution here.”
Watch above via CNN.
