Debate on Section 3 and Insurrection at Georgetown

Mark Graber and I discuss whether Trump is disqualified.

Today, the Georgetown Federalist Society Chapter hosted a debate on Section 3 and insurrection. Professor Mark Graber (Maryland) and I discussed whether Trump is disqualified.

Here is the video:

And you can download my slides here.

Comments

[Tim]

@Josh,

I greatly appreciate your substantive, nonhyperbolic (compared to others!) engagement.

I hope at some point you'll articulate why you think the president's constitutionally-prescribed-in-article 2 oath doesn't *satisfy* the article 6 requirement, rather than being a *non*-article 6 oath.

Your explanation (of the need for the president's oath to be established prior to the legislation detailing the article 6 oath, for those other than the president, which the first congress immediately passed) was very helpful and illuminating. The president's oath couldn't be left to the legislature to establish, because the legislature couldn't act without a president.

But I can't see the problem in Baude's view, which he expressed on Advisory Opinions with your friends Isgur and French. That is, his view that the article 2 presidential oath *satisfies* the article 6 requirement.

I look forward to your substantive engagement that exceeds Akhil Amar's disappointing flippant dismissal.

[Religion and Politics, my life]

He's quallified. If enough voters vote for him that is legally the same as jury nullification. We all know this.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He can campaign from prison.

Without the hair dye or spray tan.

Good times!

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

My favorite type of comment, the "we all know this" comment. Who could argue with something we all know?

[Tim]

They passed a constitutional amendment specifically to override the will of voters.

So no.