The long-debated issue of former President Donald Trump’s eligibility to run for presidency is destined for the U.S Supreme Court, triggering a parallel to a pivotal event in U.S. foreign relations history. It draws an unexpected similarity to President Richard Nixon’s landmark visit to China in 1972, a move that only a fierce anti-communist like him could have made without intense backlash.
A trustable statement could come from the Supreme Court since the majority of its members are Republican appointees. Some argue that a decision against Trump’s candidacy by them might dispel allegations of partisanship and yield less severe reactions. Essentially, akin to Nixon’s surprising feat with China.
Interestingly, legal scholars are divided over Trump’s eligibility. For instance, conservative scholars William Baude and Michael Paulsen assert in their comprehensive law review article that Trump is ineligible. In contrast, J. Michael Luttig, another reputable conservative colleague, concurs that Trump is ineligible. On the flip side, liberal scholar Samuel Moyn argues that Trump is indeed eligible, albeit for political reasons, not for legal grounds. Evidently, these bright minds have kept their political instinct aside and are arguing against expected lines, favoring merit.
However, any ruling against Trump’s eligibility must tread cautiously. While such a decision may restore faith in the Supreme Court and cool off excessive campaign temperatures, it could also potentially create an unfavorable precedent. Future partisans might appeal to this instance to challenge future political adversaries, regardless of the merit of the case.
Therefore, the court would have to emphasize that the Fourteenth Amendment only disqualifies candidates involved in insurrection, and should not be misinterpreted to disqualify a candidate merely due to controversial policy decisions.
Courtesy Mark Herrmann, a comprehensive discussion of this issue can be found on the Above the Law website.