Jonathan Chait Can’t Even Make A Coherent Argument

Jonathan Chait's Rube-Con Lets SCOTUS Off Easyhttps://t.co/ekD8Z6u0rC

— emptywheel (@emptywheel) December 27, 2023

Jonathan Chait is not a lawyer, but that doesn’t keep him from having opinions:

To deny the voters the chance to elect the candidate of their choice is a Rubicon-crossing event for the judiciary. It would be seen forever by tens of millions of Americans as a negation of democracy. It is not enough that their belief is plausibly wrong or likely wrong. It must be incontrovertibly wrong to support such a momentous step.

Stupidly wrong opinions.

Let’s do this without resorting to legal arguments.

  The U.S. Constitution:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Also the U.S. Constitution:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Also the U.S. Constitution:

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.

If Arnold Schwarzenegger had been persuaded, after serving as Governor of California, to run for POTUS,  would it be wrong for a court of competent jurisdiction to declare him ineligible under the first provision cited above?  Would that be denying the voters the candidate of their choice?  Neal Gorsuch didn’t think so, on precisely that question, in Colorado. Is it more important people in Colorado be able to choose Trump in a primary, than be able to choose someone no one now remembers? Why? Show your work.

If the Senate had done its duty in 2021 and removed Trump from office and barred him from holding federal office ever again, would that, or any necessary court order upholding it, be denying the voters the candidate of their choice? Would such an action by the Senate be sufficient to convince Trump supporters of the validity of further necessary legal actions? Really?

Why? Show your work.

The 14th Amendment is part of the constitution. We’ve never removed a President from office under the Congressional impeachment power. But does anyone doubt the Senate could declare such a person ineligible to hold federal office again?

Now explain the fundamental and irreconcilable difference between the Art. I and 14th Amendment scenarios.

Show your work.