(Note: I would really appreciate it that any participants in this thread, BEFORE they participate in this thread, READ the linked document. ALL 126 pdf pages. The thread is ABOUT the linked document, so I think it is a fair request on my part that a person at least read it before commenting on it.)
I have quoted the abstract, but the document can only be fully understood by reading it in full.
I would note that the two authors are conservative and members of the Federalist Society. So that kills the kneejerk partisan (but libs) nonsense right off the bat. The two authors are about as conservative as it is possible to be.
I will comment further below the link and the abstract.
Abstract: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal consequences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three. First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.
The authors do an incredible job of explaining Section Three in its historical context. They make an ironclad argument that Donald John Trump (and others) are already disqualified from holding office under the United States or any State.
The release of the paper is certainly as timely as can be. Lawsuits are already being filed, including in New Hampshire and this paper will definitely be of considerable aid to decision makers, be they executive or judicial. It is a must read for anybody who is called to make a judgement or ruling under Section Three.
I have read the entire paper and I agree with it in full. Both as to the sweep and force of Section Three itself, as well as to their exhaustive examination of what constitutes insurrection, rebellion and aid and comfort.
Discussion in this thread should relate to the concepts and arguments discussed by the authors in the paper, so again, it is really necessary to read the paper before commenting on it.
And I believe this paper to be of great importance, as it will likely be relied on, both by executive branch officials and jurists in the consideration of disqualification requests and lawsuits.