Does the Fourteenth Amendment Disqualify Trump from the Presidency?

Co-blogger Ediberto Roman doesn't think so, as he explains in two podcasts, here and here.

(Ediberto is traveling, so I have posted these links for him.)

Comments

[Enrique]

no, it does not, at least not "automatically" as some have suggested: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4564998

[LawProf John Banzhaf]

Readers who might want more info and a different perspective might wish to read:

Dozen States Must Now Consider Banning Trump From Ballot;
12 Formal Legal Removal Demands Filed;
Might Avoid Problem of Standing
bit.ly/3r0uPvf

Secretaries of State and other officials in at least a dozen states - including Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania - are considering whether to prohibit former president Donald Trump from appearing on the presidential ballot, or to at least hold hearings to help decide how to deal with growing demands that he be barred from office because of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In addition to prompting serious consideration of this issue in states where it is already being discussed, these formal legal demands which have just been filed with the secretaries of state of each of these states may help avoid (provide an alternative workaround to) the failure of similar efforts to disqualify Trump, former president Barack Obama, and others - lack of legal standing.

Section 3 and its application to the events of January 6th have already had some real-world consequences: in New Mexico a county commissioner lost his office; a member of Congress was found to be covered by the section; and another member of Congress escaped removal only because he was found not to have engaged in insurrection.

Any state's refusal to do anything at all in response to a formal legal removal demand may provide a legal basis for establishing standing, says Banzhaf, who was held by a federal judge to have legal standing to sue to require the appointment of an independent counsel when his own formal legal demand seeking such an appointment was denied.

PS: The 13th state, Connecticut, was just added to the list.

[Anon]

Banana republic.

[anon]

Insurrection:
"an organized and usually violent act of revolt or rebellion against an established government or governing authority of a nation-state or other political entity by a group of its citizens or subjects."
Revolt:
"to take violent action against authority, or to refuse to be controlled or ruled."
In the US Code, seditious conspiracy is:
"If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."
Just pause, for a moment. Think. Are these workable standards, available to ANY state official, to use to disqualify candidates for the Presidency of the United States? What range of conduct could be shoehorned into these loose definitions? What if seditious conspiracy isn't even charged in a court of law?
Is hatred of one man causing a complete abandonment of reason, leading to the outcome that these haters claim they oppose: unprincipled totalitarian control of the political process?