Former Judge Claims Trump Ineligible for Future Office 📜
J. Michael Luttig, a retired judge known for his conservative stance, recently submitted a legal brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that Donald Trump should be deemed ineligible to hold public office based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Luttig, who served on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, is advocating for a strict interpretation of the Constitution as the Supreme Court prepares to deliberate on a case that could potentially exclude Trump from electoral ballots, following precedents set by Colorado and Maine.
In his detailed submission, Luttig emphasized the importance of adhering to the original meaning of the Constitution’s provisions, cautioning against both overly narrow and excessively broad interpretations. He cited historical precedents and legal scholarship, including the thoughts of Justice Antonin Scalia, to bolster his argument for a “textualist” approach.
Luttig’s brief, which also features contributions from other notable conservatives like George Conway, challenges several of Trump’s defenses. It specifically addresses Trump’s involvement in the events of January 6, 2021, asserting that such actions effectively self-disqualify him under the amendment in question.
The retired judge also tackled the notion that the 14th Amendment, established post-Civil War, is outdated or irrelevant to contemporary issues. He drew parallels between the insurrection of January 6 and past acts of insurrection, including those that occurred during the Civil War era, to illustrate the amendment’s enduring applicability.
Furthermore, Luttig addressed concerns about the democratic implications of barring Trump from the ballot. He argued that the Constitution already imposes certain qualifications for office and that the American electoral system, including mechanisms like the Electoral College, frequently produces outcomes that do not align with the popular vote. According to Luttig, such provisions are foundational to the Republic, established by the People, and should not be narrowly enforced to the detriment of constitutional integrity.