The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Offices Under the United States and the Oral Argument in Trump v. Anderson
Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Incompatibility Clause both apply to "officers under the United States" and must thus mean the same thing
The oral argument today in Trump v. Anderson strongly suggests a Trump victory on the grounds advanced heroically by Josh Blackman and Seth Barrett Tillman. Many kudos to them both for the long and successful campaign that they have waged. The Court will likely reverse the Colorado Supreme Court based on Griffin's Case, the absence of congressional legislation enforcing Section 3, and the prudential and pragmatic arguments made in Section 3 of the Brief signed by Attorneys General Edwin Meese III, Michael B. Mukasey, and William P. Barr, as well as by me and Gary Lawson.
Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Neil Gorsuch made a valiant but unsuccessful attempt to get Trump's attorney to address the other plausible off ramp for the Supreme Court in this case, which is the argument that Section 3 does not apply to the President of the United States. They offered definitions of the phrase "officer of the United States" and of the word "office" and of the word "officer", but they never forced Trump's awful lawyer to say anything about the meaning of the phrase "office *** under the United States", which language appears in exactly that formulation in both Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment and in the Incompatibility Clause.
If the presidency is an "office *** under the United States" that covers Donald Trump under Section 3, of the Fourteenth Amendment, then it has to also be an "Office under the United States" for the purposes of the Incompatibility Clause, which bars Members of Congress from holding any "Office under the United States." That would mean that the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 is unconstitutional because it allows either the Speaker of the House of Representatives or the President Pro Tempore of the Senate to serve simultaneously as a Member of either House and to hold the Presidency in the absence of both a President and a Vice President, which Presidency is wrongly said to be an "Office under the United States".
The Founding Fathers included legislative officers in the line of succession to the President, in 1792, in the Second Congress, in which many framers of the Constitution sat. President George Washington signed the 1792 Presidential Succession Act into law disregarding a complaint by Rep. James Madison that legislative officers could not be put in the line of succession to the Presidency because doing so would violate the Incompatibility Clause. President Washington and the Framers in the second Congress did not think that the Presidency was an "Office under the United States" for the purposes of the Incompatibility Clause. This is dispositive proof that the Presidency is also not an "office *** under the United States" for the purposes of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
You might want to do so research on the meaning of the word "heroically."
The argument (and how the case is obviously going) is great news for Trump...for obvious reasons. And for Biden...since Trump is the only Republican with a pulse that Biden can beat.
Balanced against the dreadful report today that describes Biden as a dotard, shambling and incoherent; at least this [keeping Trump definitely in the race] was one bit of good news.
:“Forty-three percent say they prefer Trump and 39% say they prefer Biden, which is within the margin of error for the poll. Robert Kennedy, Jr. pulls in about 9% of voters, but most of them say they would vote for Trump if they only faced a choice between Trump and Biden. These responses suggest that Kennedy is taking more votes from Trump.”
https://www.umass.edu/news/article/new-umass-amherst-poll-finds-2024-presidential-election-fast-becoming-sequel-no-one
Some people who were framers — but not James Madison! — didn't think that a term used in the 1787 constitution included the president, so that is "dispositive proof" that different people, 80 years later, didn't think that this term included the president?
That. But not only that.
Perhaps instead of thinking the Presidency wasn’t an “Office under the United States”, the people who supported the 1792 Presidential Succession Act thought that there was no incompatibility between that Act and the Incompatibility Clause because the Incompatibility Clause doesn’t in any way conflict with having a Member of the House or Senate elevated to the Presidency. The only impediment would have to be they would have to give up their seat in the House or in the Senate. But nothing in the text, and the history relied on Calabresi supports, suggests a member of Congress can’t be in the line of succession to the Presidency, only that, if they are made President through the Succession Act, they cannot continue as a member of Congress too.
These sorts of arguments seem incredibly weak to me. I suppose they could argue that if the pay for the President had been increased during the Congress member's time in office, that would make them ineligible, but that’s a specific instance, not a categorical bar, so the Succession Act isn’t unconstitutional.
"No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."
We can scratch "created", when it comes to the Presidency, so the only question would be whether the President had been voted a pay raise during that term. And I believe precedent is that you can negate the incompatibility clause by simply volunteering to only accept the prior salary.
The inclusion of the Speaker and President Pro Tem in the line of succession goes back to the 2nd Congress (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large/Volume_1/2nd_Congress/1st_Session/Chapter_8), so it's a good bet the Founders didn't think the practice was unconstitutional.
But it's a bad idea nonetheless, in light of the emergence of parties, because it creates the possibility of an effective coup by taking out the President and Vice President and putting in a person who was not elected nationally nor appointed by the President who was elected, and might be of another party. I think Bill Buckley made this point a long time ago.
Marbury vs. Madison struck down the Judiciary Act of 1789 as unconstitutional. The Judiciary Act was enacted by the First Congress. So you may be right about what "the Founders" thought — though of course the Second Congress had many non-Founders in it — but that in no way proves that they were right.
Since the Founders at the constitutional convention didn't believe in political parties, they would not have cared whether a presidential successor was from a different party. Our contemporary idea of that being a problem does not instruct us on whether they would have thought legislative officers from a different party in the succession path would have violated their intention regarding the Incompatibility Clause.
I do think legislative officers in the line of succession is a bad idea, may indeed be unconstitutional. As I was observing to a friend today, unfortunately we will probably only get the opportunity to test the proposition during a national crisis. At the very least, I think the succession act should have differing lines for temporary versus permanent succession. Having the secretary of state or treasury become Acting President when the president is incapacitated makes much more sense than necessitating the speaker of the House resign for a 2 week substitution. (Also don't think a cabinet secretary should have to resign, but that's getting into the weeds.)
I very much hope that Steve has been using the term “awful” when referring to Citizen Trump’s lawyer Jonathan Michell in the sense of “awe inspiring”, not of “objectionable”.
As someone leaning towards Norma Anderson’s position, i was quite impressed by the polished way and substance of Mitchell’s arguments. It might have been that Jason Murray’s relative inexperience did show, it might have been that the Justices seemed to have set their minds already against Anderson’s aim. Murray at times seemed to wobble considerably.
While Mitchell did a very good job on presenting his client’s textual arguments - Murray was clobbered by the Justices with consequentialist ones. I have a hard time with arguments of the type “oh, chaos will ensue if we allow each state to define who is qualified to be president or not.” If that is so, have the legislatures alter the law and the constitution but don’t arrogate the power to override the constitutional set-up.
I tip my hat to “awesome” Jonathan and commiserate with Jason’s fate before Justices who seemed very much decided to not support his cause.
That's too bad, because it looks like the "chaos will ensue" argument will carry that day, with the Court finding that states reaching opposite conclusions for disqualification from national office is a good argument as to why section 3 cannot be "self-executing" for the states to enforce themselves--think of it as a constitutional major questions doctrine no implied delegation Although I suppose Congress could choose to authorize chaos via section 5 implementation legislation.
Not sure I agree. As I see it, the point of using Section 3 against Trump is to get him off the ballot while being able to say "how dare you say we're anti-democratic hacks, we're just following generally applicable constitutional law !"
But any state that wants to keep Trump, or Biden, or anyone else off the ballot can still do so, absent Section 5 regulated execution for Section 3, simply by legislating their Presidential election machinery so. (So long as they avoid equal protection problems. )
It's just that they can't hide behind the federal constitution.
I presume he's "awful" because he was behind the Texas abortion Bill.
The Presidential Succession Act expressly requires the Speaker to resign as both speaker and member of Congress before assuming the duties of acting president, and likewise, mutatis mutandis, for the president pro tem of the senate if it gets to that point. So I'm having trouble identifying the constitutional issue that Prof. Calabresi sees here, or the inference he wants to draw from it. Can anyone assist?
I don't get that point either. Unrelatedly, I do think it's interesting that the Act effectively leaves the Speaker out of the cold if they assume the Presidency due to inability of the Prez/VP and at least one of those inabilities is later removed. No good deed &c.
There is no provision that they get their old jobs back.
I guess they are expected to just take one for the team.
Or, possibly. they could refuse to resign in which case they could not "act as President". It seems likely that would count as them failing to qualify and the opportunity would pass to the next in line, but that situation isn't clearly contemplated in the statute.
This was covered in a "The West Wing" episode. The VP had resigned, with no replacement appointed. The president's daughter was kidnapped, and so the prez invoked the 25th and temporarily stepped down. The Speaker (played by a lovely John Goodman) is preparing to take the oath, when West Wing staff remind him that he'll have to lose his speakership and run again for re-election in a few years. He points out that (of course) he'd have to run again, as all House members do.
Maybe we could all chip in and buy Calabresi a box set? When I was in Viet Nam, I got the complete DVDs for about $2 USD. (Yeah, okay; there's a chance they were pirated copies, I admit.)
Just listened to the 2:09 of oral argument and read the transcript as I listened. Wow. Loved it.
One, Jonathan Mitchell's presentation was excellent. His experience showed. And his rebuttal at the end was a great close. I know he has detractors.
Two, kudos to Mr. Murray who argued for CO. He did a credible job; he has nothing to feel bad about. He left it on the field (meaning, he did his best). Justice's Alito and Gorsuch eviscerated him during argument (that part was not pretty).
Three, hope Ms. Stevenson gets another chance to argue in another case one day in the future. You could tell there were nerves, but she just argued right through it. Did well with the limited time she had.
Q: Could Mr. Murray have done a 'rebuttal to the rebuttal'?
It's not over until opinions are put out. Even then other fragmentary notions will be devised into yet more legal usurpations of our 235 year old federal system, a system far from sight, yet close too.
" . . . on the grounds advanced heroically by Josh Blackman and Seth Barrett Tillman."
HEROICALLY?!?
That's fucking stupid.
"That’s fucking stupid."
It's the new Calabresi.
See, for example, his gibberish on the Incompatibility Clause and the Succession Acts (of 1792 and 1947).
See, for example, his gibberish on the Incompatibility Clause and the Succession Acts (of 1792 and 1947).
NOVA Lawyer,
When I listened to oral arguments, I got the sense that the Court took the argument quite seriously.
The argument makes sense to me too, and I’m not even a lawyer.
Mitchell barely touched on the Incompatibility Clause and Succession Acts, and got one question from Gorsuch followed by a very noncommittal "thank you" after the explanation. And, importantly, the response to his question didn't address alleged conflict between the Incompatibility Clause and the Succession Act(s). In fact, Mitchell argued that, although the Speaker and President Pro Tempore are officers, they can't be "officers of the United States" because they aren't subject to impeachment, appointed pursuant to Article II, or commissioned by the President. Not a word about the succession acts in his response.
In short, the officers argument is plausible if, in my opinion, very weak. There is, however, no conflict between the Incompatibility Clause and the Succession Act including because the Act specifically requires the Speaker or President Pro Tempore to resign their position in Congress to assume the presidency. If the argument has any traction, its because of Constitutional text, not the Succession Act(s).
If the presidency is an “office *** under the United States” that covers Donald Trump under Section 3, of the Fourteenth Amendment, then it has to also be an “Office under the United States” for the purposes of the Incompatibility Clause, which bars Members of Congress from holding any “Office under the United States.” That would mean that the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 is unconstitutional because it allows either the Speaker of the House of Representatives or the President Pro Tempore of the Senate to serve simultaneously as a Member of either House and to hold the Presidency in the absence of both a President and a Vice President, which Presidency is wrongly said to be an “Office under the United States”.
I don’t read that into the Presidential Succession Act. As I read it, if a speaker of the House or president pro tem of the Senate were to succeed to the Presidency, that person would no longer be a member of Congress and his departure would create a vacancy that needs to be filled according to other existing law.
Exactly.
So many butt hurt "Libertarians" sad that they can't be fascist and keep a candidate off the ballot.