Provision in 14th Amendment could void Trump pardons

[greatbaldeagle]

Professor Eric Segall teaches at Georgia State University College of Law. Segall broke down how one section of the 14th amendment could spell trouble for Trump.

Segall said Trump could be convicted under a little-known provision found in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

“What it says is, if you’ve taken an oath to uphold the constitution and you engage in insurrection, then you are disqualified from holding office again, unless two-thirds of Congress vote that you are not in insurrection,” Segall said.

If Trump were convicted, it could not only affect his ability to run for office again, it could also affect his pardons, according to Segall.

During his final days in office, Trump issued a number of pardons.

“There is a realistic argument that once the Congress finds that on Jan. 6th, Trump engaged in insurrection or in rebellion against the country, that anything he does after that, including pardons might be null and void,” Segall said. “That is the only way those pardons could be undone.”

[link:https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/professor-says-little-known-provision-14th-amendment-could-spell-trouble-trump/LOYGC3MI6NHB7AVCYYGCPWNLWE/?_website=cmg-tv-10010|

[onenote]

1. That's a bit of a stretch.

[FBaggins]

9. That's being polite

He's badly off-base. Is he a professor of finger painting?

"anything he does after that, including pardons might be null and void"

How does he pardon someone when he's no longer president?

[ProfessorPlum]

24. Trump pardoned people after Jan 6th

and before jan 20th. I think he is talking about those pardons.

[FBaggins]

26. That doesn't matter

There's no way to make a Senate conviction effective as of an earlier date.

I think one of the larger gaps is that he treats the Senate action as "finds" as though a court had made a finding of fact.

The Senate has no such power.

They can apply 14A on their own when deciding whether or not to seat a Senator-purportedly-elect. But they can't trigger 14A for others.

[ProfessorPlum]

28. I have no opinion on whether he is right

was just trying to figure out the timeline he was referring to.

Your take seems like not only the correct one, but also the pragmatic one.

[Irish_Dem]

3. It makes sense. If a president engages in a sedition, he should not be able to pardon those who

aided his illegal activities.

[TwilightZone]

4. Not a realistic argument.

He is certainly free to call it that, but it's not. The Congressional Research Service has noted that once a pardon is granted, subsequent actions don't negate them. Voiding pardons is not an available option in the impeachment/conviction process.

"A Congressional Research Service report covers presidential pardons and their relationship with Congress and impeachment. Both the CRS and Bowman noted that impeachment can be used against a president who abuses their pardon power. For example, if the president is taking bribes in exchange for pardons. But even in that case it doesn’t stop the pardon itself.

The CRS notes that even if the president is impeached and subsequently convicted for abusing their pardon power, the remedy would be limited to removal from office and disqualification from future office. So the individual president is removed from power, but their acts are not undone."

https://www.11alive.com/article/news/verify/verify-impeachment-does-not-undo-presidential-pardons/507-aaf8978e-5282-4147-ad47-65ca3b7d0458

[turtleblossom]

5. What's the probability of that happening?

Unless nature take its course and Tяump has to answer to God...

[PoliticAverse]

18. Close enough to zero for government work. n/t

[greatbaldeagle]

6. You're missing the argument

If you read Section 3, it starts with "no person shall be". That is the key to what this professor is arguing. The argument is that once the person engages in insurrection, they no longer hold the office mentioned. "No person shall be President". Therefore the pardons didn't happen because he was no longer POTUS once he engaged in the insurrection. It's not really about reversing the pardons but rather arguing that he didn't have the authority to grant them because he wasn't POTUS unless 2/3 of Congress say he wasn't guilty of insurrection. So this isn't an argument about whether or not an impeached President's pardons are valid, but specifically because of the language in Section 3, whether an insurrectionist's post-insurrection actions are valid if they technically weren't actually holding office.

[FBaggins]

10. There isn't a plausible argument in there

You don't become guilty of insurrection until you're charged with it and convicted in court. The Senate doesn't have a say (even if unanimous).

The Senate has the power to convict him... and they can unanimously say that they're doing so because he supported/encouraged an insurrection... but that's just their rationale for voting to convict. That doesn't trigger 14A.

[StarfishSaver]

15. We found something to agree about

This argument is bull

[FBaggins]

22. Blind squirrels and all that

We've found many things to agree about.

[onenote]

11. The provision isn't self-executing.

The only time it has been invoked in the past 100 years was with respect to an avowed socialist who ran for Congress in 2018 while under indictment for allegedly violating the Espionage Act. He won the election but Congress refused to seat him, citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. He ran again to fill the vacancy that was created when he wasn't seated -- and after he won again Congress again refused to seat him. He was convicted, but after his conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court he once again won election to Congress and he was allowed to take his seat in Congress.

[StarfishSaver]

14. That's not even close to being a rational argument.

[greatbaldeagle]

19. Just going to leave this here

[link:https://law.gsu.edu/profile/eric-j-segall/|

[Duppers]

21. I like the logic of this

Interpretation.

At least it makes sense to me.

TY!

[Takket]

23. That's absurd. I mean, someone can run that up the flagpole

But any judge is going to toss it out.

You can’t undo what has been done and as much as I despise the pardons the concept of the police knocking on someone’s door and saying “Your pardon has been cancelled you are going back to prison” is pretty damn Undemocratic.

Besides the constitution already makes it clear that pardon power is pretty much absolute except the president can’t pardon someone who has been impeached if the impeachable offense. That is what a judge is going to look at not some 14th amendment wordsmithing.

And you can’t just undo a presidency retroactive to some date. He didn’t just pardon people. What if he bombed a country? Do we have to build a time machine and undo the bombing because he wasn’t president at that point?

Nah. This is a terrible legal argument.

[AlexSFCA]

7. SC won't even touch presidential pardons - separation of powers

[greatbaldeagle]

8. That's too simple

If he pardoned himself you better believe they WILL touch it. And the if he's convicted by the Senate, the "except for cases of impeachment" part will be a major point of contention if he gave secret pardons for people accused of inciting insurrection.

[FBaggins]

12. That too is wrong

"Except in cases of impeachment" just means that he can't use the pardon to block an impeachment and loses the power if/when he's removed. It doesn't undo pardons made before leaving office.

[greatbaldeagle]

16. That's your opinion. Not a fact

[link:https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/traditional-interpretation-pardon-power-wrong/614083/|

Many legal scholars have debated it both ways so you can't just say it's wrong because you think it's wrong

[StarfishSaver]

13. It may be an argument, but it's not a realistic one. Not even close.

[PoliticAverse]

17. This demonstrates once again that no matter how unrealistic a legal argument is...

you can find some lawyer that will be willing to make it.

[greatbaldeagle]

20. Just going to leave this here

[link:https://law.gsu.edu/profile/eric-j-segall/|

[MineralMan]

25. Here's the thing: People are going to be arguing about that

and many other things for years. There will be court cases. There will be congressional investigations. There may be criminal investigations, indictments, arrests, and prosecutions. Every last one of those things will end up being appealed again and again, and not settled for years.

It is a complete waste of time to focus too closely on things that will only be decided in courts after long periods of time.

Meanwhile, there is so much going on that will happen soon. We can focus on those things with good reason.

All of this other stuff is just a waste of time, since we can do nothing about any of it.

[cbdo2007]

27. THEN you could argue Trump was working on the insurrection since the debate when...

he told Proud Boys to "Stand back and Stand by" and that they were waiting for that moment, so really anything after that debate would be part of his insurrection plan, including filling the RBG seat, so all of that is nullified as well.

I doubt any of that will happen, but it is fun to dream and play "what ifs".