Second Attempt—Or More! Obama And Cronies Don’t Give Justice A Try Because Obama A Disbarred Constitutional Lawyer Fought The US Constitution With Last Dying Breath! And Donors Slip In Op-Ed On The Hill Try Derailment Of Trump Inauguration January 2025!
๐ ๐ซ๐๐ถ๐ธ๐ ๐น๐๐ ๐ป๐๐ ๐ ๐ถ๐๐น ๐๐๐๐ถ๐๐ ๐ถ๐๐น ๐ต๐๐๐ ๐ต๐๐ถ๐๐๐พ๐ป๐๐ ๐ต๐๐๐๐ ๐ถ๐๐น ๐ฅ๐๐๐๐๐ถ๐๐ ๐ผ๐ ๐ฏ๐ฝ๐ ๐ฒ๐๐๐๐น ~
๐ผ๐๐ธ๐๐๐น๐พ๐๐ ๐๐ฝ๐ ๐ฟ๐พ๐๐๐๐ ๐ป๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ป ๐๐พ๐๐ถ๐ธ๐๐๐
All books and journals by Laurel Sobol are available online at Barns and Noble bn.com
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Second Attempt—Or More! Obama And Cronies Don’t Give Justice A Try Because Obama A Disbarred Constitutional Lawyer Fought The US Constitution With Last Dying Breath! And Donors Slip In Op-Ed On The Hill Try Derailment Of Trump Inauguration January 2025!
Time For Trump And Electoral College To Sue Obama Supporter Cronies Illegal Insurrection Against The Rightful Legal 45th, 46th, And 47th
President Of The American People! American People Chose President Elect Donald J. Trump Three Times In A Row!
The Hill Update— Former federal judge rips Washington Post over 14th Amendment editorial
BY MIRANDA NAZZARO - 10/02/23 7:31 PM ET
Former federal judge Michael Luttig ripped The Washington Post’s Monday op-ed against invoking the 14th Amendment to disqualify former President Trump from the 2024 election, calling it “perhaps the most journalistically incompetent and irresponsible” piece he has ever read on the U.S. Constitution.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War, includes a clause that states no person shall hold elected office who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States.”
Several experts, lawmakers and activists have argued this clause could disqualify Trump from the 2024 ballot for his alleged actions in connection to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. Federal prosecutors have alleged the former president stood at the center of a campaign to block the certification of votes on Jan. 6.
Luttig took aim at the paper’s interpretation of the amendment.
“This editorial today by @washingtonpost is perhaps the most journalistically incompetent and irresponsible editorial on the Constitution of the United States and a question of constitutional law by a major national newspaper that I ever remember reading,” Luttig wrote Monday in a post on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter.
Luttig, a conservative appointed by former President George H.W. Bush who has repeatedly criticized Trump’s false election claims, claimed the op-ed titled “The 14th Amendment can’t save the country from Donald Trump” misquoted Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
‘Proud' Benzema calls time on international career with France Stay-
The provision has already been cited in two lawsuits in Minnesota and Colorado seeking to keep Trump off the ballot.
Sign up for the Morning Report
The latest in politics and policy. Direct to your inbox.
By signing up, I agree to the Terms of Use, have reviewed the Privacy Policy, and to receive personalized offers and communications via email, on-site notifications, and targeted advertising using my email address from The Hill, Nexstar Media Inc., and its affiliates
The Post’s op-ed addresses several points of uncertainty over the provision, writing that the answers “in most instances, aren’t terribly clear.”
Luttig was responding to the beginning of the piece, wherein the Post’s editorial board calls the case for invoking the 14th Amendment “intriguing,” but that “banking on an arcane paragraph to protect the country from a second Trump term would be foolish.”
“The editorial inauspiciously begins by ‘misquoting’ the Disqualification Clause of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment itself, next dismissively pronouncing the argument for disqualification made by the nation’s foremost constitutional scholars as little more than intriguing and then admonishing the American public that ‘banking on an arcane paragraph to protect the country from a second Trump term would be foolish’ of them,” Luttig wrote in a later post on X.
Luttig also argued the Post does not actually explain why the American public should not be relying on the 14th Amendment.
๐๐๐
Democrat Lawyers Call for Congress to Block Trump from Taking Office
Davis and Schulte also argued that counting the Electoral College votes “is a matter uniquely assigned to Congress by the Constitution” — which some Republicans pointed out was the same argument Trump was attacked for when he urged Congress to hold off on certifying the 2020 election results until irregularities were fully mitigated.
Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) posted on X sarcastically: “Sounds like inciting an Insurrection.”
Davis and Schulte argued that the 1887 Electoral Count Act provided two grounds for objection to an electoral vote: “if the electors from a state were not lawfully certified or if the vote of one or more electors was not ‘regularly given.'” They argued: “A vote for a candidate disqualified by the Constitution is plainly in accordance with the normal use of words ‘not regularly given.'”
They said 20 percent of the House and Senate were required to make an objection under the Count Act, and if the objection is sustained by a majority vote in the House and Senate, the electoral votes for Trump would not be counted and Kamala Harris would be elected president.
They argued that while Republicans would not likely go along with this, “Democrats need to take a stand.”
Steven Cheung, a spokesman for the Trump transition team, posted, “Oh, look. Democrats want to steal the election and invalidate the will of the American people.”
Trump campaign adviser Alex Bruesewitz noted that former U.S. Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Clark was politically persecuted for drafting a memo proposing a legal avenue to challenge the 2020 election results — as Davis and Schulte are doing.
Davis and Schulte argued that the second forum was Trump’s second impeachment trial over the January 6 Capitol riot — despite the Senate acquitting Trump for “incitement of insurrection.”
Breitbart News senior legal contributor Ken Klukowski called their argument “ridiculous.”
“Only the Democrat-controlled House brought that accusation, and then the Senate acquitted President Trump of that impeachment count, and for anyone who is confused about what that means, the legal reality is that when you are acquitted of something, then you are by definition not guilty of it,” he said.
“President Trump was never even charged with engaging in an insurrection, to say nothing of being convicted of that crime,” Klukowski added.
Davis and Schulte argued the third forum was the Colorado Supreme Court affirming a lower court’s finding that Trump engaged in insurrection in an effort to keep Trump off the ballot.
Despite the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. Anderson then finding that states lack power to disqualify candidates for federal office, Davis and Schulte argued that the ruling amount to “dicta,” or “musings of an opinion that are not required to decide the case.”
Klukowski, who authored a brief in Trump v. Anderson representing former U.S. attorneys general from three different presidential administrations, called that argument “utterly absurd.”
“It is utterly absurd to say that the Supreme Court did not definitely hold that Congress must pass a law for disqualification, and in fact Congress has chosen not to do so,” he said, adding:
The Supreme Court decision in Andersonholds, “The relevant provision is Section 5, which enables Congress, subject of course to judicial review, to pass ‘appropriate legislation’ to ‘enforce’ the Fourteenth Amendment.” The Court went on to reason that Congress created a broad disqualification system in 1870 that it later repealed, and that the only such disqualification law currently on the books is the insurrection statute, 18 U.S.C. 2383.
“That is a holding of the court, not dicta, and Congress is obligated to follow it,” Klukowski said.
While the op-ed did not specify the authors’ political leanings, Davis is a lawyer at Cleary Gottlieb who represented the late Democrat New York Gov. Mario Cuomo and also was a Democrat candidate for New York attorney general in 1998.
Meanwhile, David Schulte is a lawyer at Chilmark Partners, a Chicago investment banker, and a “friend and financial supporter” of former President Barack Obama, as well as a friend of former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, according to the Chicago Magazine.
