Justia Blawg Search - Law Blogs, Lawyer Blogs, Legal Blogs Directory & Search Engine

A User’s Guide to Trump v. Anderson, Part Seven: Trump’s Two Remaining “Off-Ramp” Arguments: (i) That Colorado has Implemented a De Facto Extraconstitutional Presidential Qualification, in Violation of Term Limits v. Thornton; and (ii) That Colorado has Abused its Article II Authority to Appoint Presidential Electors in a “Manner” of that Colorado Law Doesn’t Authorize

7 Feb 2024, 2:35 pm by Marty Lederman

Senator); Anderson v. [read post]

Balkinization - http://balkin.blogspot.com/

A User’s Guide to Trump v. Anderson, Part Seven: Trump’s Two Remaining “Off-Ramp” Arguments: (i) That Colorado has Implemented a De Facto Extraconstitutional Presidential Qualification, in Violation of Term Limits v. Thornton; and (ii) That Colorado has Abused its Article II Authority to Appoint Presidential Electors in a “Manner” of Appointment that Colorado Law Doesn’t Authorize

7 Feb 2024, 2:02 pm by Marty Lederman

Senator); Anderson v. [read post]

Balkinization - http://balkin.blogspot.com/

A User’s Guide to Trump v. Anderson, Part Six: The Two “Off-Ramp” Arguments Based Upon In re Griffin’s Case that Would Allow the Supreme Court to Avoid Deciding Whether Trump is Eligible to be President

6 Feb 2024, 3:36 pm by Marty Lederman

Therefore, even if Chief Justice Chase had held in Griffin’s Case, as Trump asserts, that “congressional enforcement legislation [is] the exclusive means for enforcing section 3” (Chase didn’t do so), and even if that proposition were correct (it’s not) or if Chase were right about what he did hold about the inability of courts to enforce Section 3 against someone already in office (he wasn’t), that still would not require… [read post]

Balkinization - http://balkin.blogspot.com/

:@WilliamBaude: The Use and Misuse of Section Three's "Legislative History": Part II

6 Feb 2024, 7:20 am by Will Baude

From this Lash infers that it shaped both how "Trumbull viewed Section Three" and how "The ratifying public understood" Section Three as "targeting thousands of still-living leaders of the recent rebellion. [read post]

The Volokh Conspiracy - http://www.volokh.com/

:@WilliamBaude: The Objection: "But He Hasn't Been Convicted Of Anything"

5 Feb 2024, 5:05 am by Will Baude

" Trump's brief on the merits in the Supreme Court in Trump v. [read post]

The Volokh Conspiracy - http://www.volokh.com/

[Josh Blackman] In Trump v. Anderson, the Respondents' Theory Would Render Unconstitutional Every Speaker and President Pro Tempore Since 1789, as Well as President Grant's VP and Presidential Candidate George McGovern

4 Feb 2024, 1:01 pm by Josh Blackman

Fund v. [read post]

The Volokh Conspiracy - http://www.volokh.com/

:@WilliamBaude: The Objection That Enforcing Section Three Would Be Too "Dangerous"

4 Feb 2024, 11:30 am by Will Baude

Had we anticipated the reaction, it still would have been beyond the scope of our project. [read post]

The Volokh Conspiracy - http://www.volokh.com/

A User’s Guide to Trump v. Anderson, Part Four: Trump’s Argument That His Tenure as President Did Not Subject Him to Section 3 Because the President is Not an “Officer of the United States”

3 Feb 2024, 9:52 am by Marty Lederman

In one of my previous posts, I explained why it's unlikely that a majority of the Justices will hold that the Fourteenth Amendment bars Donald Trump from holding federal office. [read post]

Balkinization - http://balkin.blogspot.com/

WIPIP session 2: ™ Doctrine, © Fair Use

2 Feb 2024, 2:56 pm by Rebecca Tushnet

But it should still go back to the creation. [read post]

43(B)log - http://tushnet.blogspot.com/

A User’s Guide to Trump v. Anderson, Interim Post: Two Important Things All the Parties Get Wrong, and One Other Important Thing They Don’t Address

2 Feb 2024, 7:27 am by Marty Lederman

M'Clung v. [read post]

Balkinization - http://balkin.blogspot.com/

Look Away: How the Supreme Court Could Set Aside Trump’s Disqualification for Insurrection under the Fourteenth Amendment

2 Feb 2024, 6:51 am by Dean Falvy

Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Trump v. [read post]