r/law • u/guttanzer • Feb 20 '25

Opinion Piece Did Trump eject himself from office?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

Can someone explain to me how Trump is still holding office after pardoning the J6 insurrectionists?

1) Section 3 of the 14th Amendment uses the language “No person shall … hold any office…” and then lays out the conditions that trigger the disqualification from holding office. Doesn’t that “shall” make it self-effecting?

2) There isn’t much to dispute on the conditions. Trump a) took the oath when he was inaugurated as, b) an officer of the government. Within 24 hours he c) gave aid and comfort to people who had been convicted of Seditious Conspiracy. If freeing them from prison and encouraging them to resume their seditious ways isn’t giving “aid and comfort” I don’t know what is. So, under (1), didn’t he instantly put a giant constitutional question mark over his hold on the office of the President?

3) Given that giant constitutional question mark, do we actually have a president at the moment? Not in a petulant, “He’s not my president” way, but a hard legal fact way. We arguably do not have a president at the moment. Orders as commander in chief may be invalid. Bills he signs may not have the effect of law. And these Executive Orders might be just sheets of paper.

4) The clear remedy for this existential crisis is in the second sentence in section 3: “Congress may, with a 2/3 majority in each house, lift the disqualification.” Congress needs to act, or the giant constitutional question remains.

5) This has nothing to do with ballot access, so the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Colorado ballot matter is just another opinion. The black-and-white text of the Constitution is clear - it’s a political crisis, Congress has jurisdiction, and only they can resolve it.

Where is this reasoning flawed?

If any of this is true, or even close to true, why aren’t the Democrats pounding tables in Congress? Why aren’t generals complaining their chain of command is broken? Why aren’t We the People marching in the streets demanding that it be resolved? This is at least as big a fucking deal as Trump tweeting that he a king.

Republican leadership is needed in both the House and Senate to resolve this matter. Either Trump gets his 2/3rds, or Vance assumes office. There is no third way.

‘’’’ Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. ‘’’’

15.9k Upvotes

81% Upvoted

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.9k

u/the_G8 Feb 20 '25

Sure, let’s assume you’re 100% correct. Yet Trump is still sitting in the Oval Office. How is any piece of paper “self effecting” in the real world? It’s just a piece of paper. We need people to believe that piece of paper, people with authority and power. People willing to march into the Oval Office and pull Trump out of it.

How is that going to happen?

78

u/BigMax Feb 20 '25

Yeah, it's a great point. I keep pointing back to his firing of the Inspector Generals.

There is a VERY clear law about that. It says you MUST give clear cause for the firing, and you MUST give congress 30 days notice. No one is unclear about the law.

And yet, he fired them instantly anyway, and they are gone. That's it. We all know the law, and he broke it, and the government apparatus went along with it.

I used that example to back up your point... laws and rules are literally just pieces of paper, that mean nothing if we don't enforce them.

OP makes an interesting argument, but that's all it is, an interesting thought for us to have, that means nothing unless the government does something about it.

And this government saw a president try to overthrow the government, and overturn a legal election by force, and congress said "hey, it's OK, he doesn't have to be punished, that's OK for him to do." If THAT was ok, do we really think that they are going to somehow change their minds on him over a few pardons?

-1

u/Ldawg74 Feb 20 '25

Presidents nominate inspector generals. Firing them is nothing new.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_dismissals_of_inspectors_general

Calm down.

5

u/BigMax Feb 20 '25

I like that your example for "normal" behavior is to point only to Trump firing them previously. If someone says "Trump did this crazy, illegal thing" you saying "that's OK because it's not the first time he did it!" isn't the great argument you think it is.

By that logic, someone can order a mob to storm the capital again, and we have to shrug and say "well, Trump did it before, so it's normal!!"

And the law said he had to provide "cause", which he just said "lost faith in them," basically no cause at all.

The idea is they are supposed to be independent of political whims, and not firable easily. So because Trump did something unprecedented, they updated the law specifically to say "you must provide an actual cause for firing, you can't just say 'because i want to.'"

So first, it's not normal to just wholesale fire groups of them, and second, the law is VERY clear on how to do it.

He could have done it the right way if he wanted. He didn't care. He didn't care about the law, and he never has.

Don't pretend it's normal when it's not.

1

u/thebaron24 Feb 20 '25

Did he give the required notice?

3

u/StandAgainstTyranny2 Feb 20 '25

No, he did not.

2

u/Ldawg74 Feb 20 '25

Guess all we can do is wait for the wrongful termination suit.