Politics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people interested in governments, policies, and political processes. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
Couy Griffin has been removed from his position and is barred from ever holding a state or federal elected position again. Does this mean that Trump can be barred from holding any elected position?
Yes, this would probably be an uphill battle and I do understand that a state elected official is not quite the same as the position of president. However, they are both elected positions.
Yes he can. Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution states:
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.
Trump meets the first requirement. He had "previously taken an oath, ... as an officer of the United States ... to support the Constitution"
So if a court found that he had "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [Constitution of the United States]" he would be disqualified from being "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"
Your question can therefore be considered equal to "Can Trump be sent to prison for murder?" The answer is yes, he can, if a court decides he has committed a murder. Likewise "Can Trump be disqualified?" Yes he can, if a court decides he meets the conditions for disqualification. And that makes this a rather boring answer.
Offices - such as President of the United States or member of Congress - which have their requirements explicitly spelled out in the U.S. Constitution cannot have any further requirements imposed upon their eligibility beyond those listed explicitly in the Constitution.
So, the answer to this question comes down to how one is proposing to ban someone from running for President. Only methods explicitly spelled out in the Constitution can be used to do this. There are two such methods:
If the President is impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives and also convicted by the Senate (which requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate,) the Senate can (and usually does, but is not required to) impose the disability of inability to run for public office under the United States. It's still something of an open question as to the validity of an impeachment and conviction after someone has already left office, though.
In the aftermath of the American Civil War, the 14th Amendment was ratified, which included this provision in 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.
So, if a court found that someone "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against [the United States], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" then they could be disqualified from holding public office in the United States. This is indeed the provision under which Couy Griffin was barred. That finding is very recent, though, so whether it will survive appeal remains to be seen.
There have been several suggestions floating around that conviction of certain types of crimes could be sufficient to ban someone from running for public office. This can indeed apply to some public offices but not to Constitutional Offices because these provisions are part of laws passed by Congress (or a state, as the case may be,) not part of the Constitution itself. One could be banned from running for city council for violating a state law that provided such a punishment for example, but one cannot be banned from running for President of the United States, member of Congress, etc. for such a violation. Of course, even to bar someone from state or local office, as with any state law, the state law in question would have to not violate the U.S. or state constitution or U.S. federal law.
Yes. Furthermore, in contrast with the other answers here, some legal scholars are of the opinion that states can individually decide to exclude from their ballots any candidate which that state's election officials believe have committed an insurrection after taking an oath to uphold the Constitution.
This authority would derive from three cases. First, Hassan v. Colorado (495 F. App'x 947 (10th Cir. 2012)), a 10th-Circuit ruling that affirms that state election officials have the authority to enforce eligibility requirements within their state and exclude from ballots any person whom they determine to be ineligible. The cases United States v. Powell (27 F. Cas. 605, 65 N. C. 709 (1871)) from the District of North Carolina and Worthy v. Barrett (63 N.C. 199 (N.C. 1869)) from the Supreme Court of North Carolina both affirm that persons who committed an insurrection were barred from office despite not having been convicted of the same.
However, as none of these rulings have been challenged in SCOTUS, it is not certain that such an exclusion would prevail. If such an exclusion were made, the proper remedy would be for the excluded candidate to file suit if they believe they have been improperly excluded.
It's theoretically an open question but it's worth noting that it probably depends on the elected office. Specifically, its untested whether the prohibition would extend to the vice presidency and presidency, which of course are the offices Trump is most likely to seek.
Griffin was disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which reads:
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.
Notably missing from the offices explicitly listed is the presidency. Those seeking to disqualify Trump would likely point to "any office, civil and military, under the United States" and argue that includes the presidency. But Article 2, Section 4 says the following:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Article 2, Section 3 also states:
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
In both instances, there is a clear presumption that the president and "all officers" are two distinct categories. So even if we tend to think of the president as a civil or military office-holder, for the purpose of constitutional analysis, "officers" refers only to people appointed by the presidency.
So again, an open question, but there's a very strong case to be made that Trump could be barred from being a state senator or a judge or a governor. But my guess is you're really asking if he can be barred from the presidency, and it's likely courts would rule that no, he cannot, at the very least not without impeachment.
