Constitutional debate over Trump’s eligibility to run more extensive than realized

The idea of barring former President Donald Trump from seeking the presidency on grounds that it would violate the 14th Amendment may be an increasingly catchy constitutional argument pushed by a segment of legal scholars and activists.

But it turns out election officials have been discussing how to handle it for months.

“We have been thinking about this in my office for quite some time, before the start of the year, assuming that this will play out,” Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold said in an interview.

Watchdog Group Sues To Bar Trump From Colorado Ballot, Citing 14th Amendmen

A watchdog group has filed a lawsuit in Colorado arguing that former President Donald Trump should not appear on the state’s ballot because of his 14th Amendment violations.

The group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, filed the lawsuit Tuesday in a state district court on behalf of six Republican and unaffiliated Colorado voters who say Trump’s actions after he lost the 2020 presidential election are in clear violation of section three of the amendment, which says a person cannot hold state or federal office if they took an oath to support the U.S. Constitution and then violated it by inciting insurrection or rebellion.

Legal Scholars Say the 14th Amendment Bars Trump From Office. Here’s What History Says.

Early last year, University of Baltimore law professor Kim Wehle raised an intriguing legal question in POLITICO Magazine concerning Donald Trump’s eligibility to run for elected office: Could the 14th Amendment, which prevented ex-Confederates from seeking office after the Civil War, also bar the former president from reclaiming office after his actions in the weeks following the 2020 presidential election?

Now, with Trump facing down his fourth criminal indictment — this time for his effort to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia — the idea is gaining traction. Earlier this month, a pair of conservative legal scholars affiliated with the Federalist Society — William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas — endorsed the theory in the New York Times. A recent piece in the Atlantic added two more voices to the chorus from across the ideological spectrum: Laurence Tribe, a liberal constitutional scholar at Harvard Law School, and retired conservative judge J. Michael Luttig both support the notion that the Constitution stands between Trump and the White House. It even came up during the first GOP debate this week, when former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson said he would not “support somebody who’s been convicted of a serious felony or who is disqualified under our Constitution.”

Why Chris Christie Says We Should ‘Reexamine’ The 14th Amendment

Republican presidential candidate and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is calling for a reexamination of constitutional policy that grants citizenship to all children born to undocumented immigrants on United States soil.

In a radio appearance on Wednesday, conservative host Laura Ingraham asked Christie for his opinion on birthright citizenship, a topic he does not seem to have specifically addressed before. In response, Christie said he believed the policy may be outdated.

Take It to the Limit

There is the current crop of Ohio Republicans, and then there are those who art in Heaven. A specimen of the former, ultimate destination unknown, is Speaker of the House John Boehner, a perpetrator (and, arguably, a victim) of the terrifying debt-limit arson that his party, on fire with ideological fanaticism, political ruthlessness, and economic heedlessness, decided to spend the summer fanning. Aloft, the Buckeye State’s celestial choir of the G.O.P. departed includes Presidents Grant, Hayes, Garfield, McKinley, Taft, and (assuming he’s been sprung from Purgatory) Harding. Its original member, less famous than the rest but as distinguished as any of them, is Benjamin Franklin Wade.