Legal scholars Baude and Paulsen have stirred quite a debate with their argument that former President Donald Trump is ineligible to hold the presidency again according to Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. This incisive interpretation of constitutional law, seen through an originalist lens, has struck a chord with thinkers from both ends of the political spectrum.
Among these, Professor Laurence Tribe and former judge Michael Luttig, renowned liberals and conservatives respectively, have issued a joint support of the argument, as covered in an article in The Atlantic. On the other hand, Harvard Professor Noah Feldman criticizes this premise in his opinion column in The Washington Post.
While these intellectual fireworks transpire, Baude and Paulsen’s intervention presents an immediate practical question for the 50 states: can Trump’s name be legally presented on their ballots? This question will inevitably lead both Democratic voters and Trump himself towards litigation.
The litigious discourse has already begun. A lawsuit has been filed seeking for a declaratory judgment that Trump’s name should be removed from the Florida election ballot. Judicial systems would have to juggle these lawsuits efficiently through increasing levels of courts, with the curtains finally drawn by the Supreme Court before the commencement of the early voting for the next presidential election.
The Supreme Court’s decision is not a foregone conclusion; Justices are known to hold the law paramount over politics, and the tendencies of the current conservative majority court are not aligned with Trump’s MAGA conservative ethos. Thus, the decision cannot be inferred solely based on the political alignment of the Justices.
An important consequence of Baude and Paulsen’s argument is that it raises legitimate legal questions that need to be answered by courts. While their argument could potentially bar Trump’s candidacy, it also defines a model that may be weaponized against Democrats in future, with ballot challenges in conservative-leaning states.
Hence, it could be argued that Baude and Paulsen have indeed opened up Pandora’s Box, and where we go from here remains to be seen. The implications of their unique interpretation certainly infuse an added layer of complexity into the pragmatic dynamics of electoral candidacies.
Full details of this analysis can be found in Mark Herrmann’s article here.