"The Sweep and Force of Section Three" - disqualifies Mr.Trump from holding office again

This is an interesting development, Mr.trump’s future prospects took a vicious hit from his own team, that is a couple law professors involved with the Federalist Society.

Prof William Maude and Prof Michael Paulson

The Sweep and Force of Section Three

University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 172, 2024

126 Pages Posted:

William Baude

University of Chicago - Law School

Michael Stokes Paulsen

University of St. Thomas School of Law

Date Written: August 9, 2023


Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal consequences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.

First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. >

Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications.

Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment.

Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. >

And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.

Keywords: Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment, Section Three, Insurrection, Rebellion

Suggested Citation:
Baude, William and Paulsen, Michael Stokes, The Sweep and Force of Section Three (August 9, 2023). University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 172, 2024, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=

WIKI: William Patrick Baude (born c. 1982) is an American legal scholar. He currently serves as a professor of law at the University of Chicago Law School and is the director of its Constitutional Law Institute.[1] He is a scholar of constitutional law and originalism.[2]


(couldn’t find a Wiki bio)

Attorney Michael Popok gets so excited he forgot their usual obnoxious mid-show-commercial. (I do Popok with a grain of salt, but dang if he doesn’t do a good job of explaining the law. With over 30 years of lawyering, guess he’s seen a thing or two. )

After reading through Michael Paulsen’s Law & Liberty summery of articles, I get the feeling this won’t make as big a splash as Popok predicts, but who knows. Still, I figure why not start a thread on it over here, perhaps, hopefully, I’ll be able to report back that is has gather some traction, with interesting cascading consequences of these guys standing up so forcefully. We shall see.

Aug 12, 2023
Michael Popok of Legal AF reports on a new case made by 2 leading right wing Federalist Society law professors that Trump participated in a Rebellion and Insurrection against the US and right now is disqualified under the 14th Amendment from ever holding office again, a position that will no doubt end up being cited by courts and judges up to the Supreme Court going forward as the DOJ and others seek to have Trump ruled disqualified.

1 Like

If Section 3 is law, then there is no room for discussion, right?
The law says that it is not subject to adjudication except for establishing fact.

If a person is judged to have participated in or given comfort to an insurrection, they are automatically prohibited from holding office. End of story.

Yeah but, it’s people who enforce the laws and standards of the people,
it get’s complicated. :thinking:

But, we can be hopeful.

But there is no point because Biden will smash trump in the elections because the Democrats anyone but trump message won the election last time and they say it will work again. What are you worried about??

What do you fear most?”
"I fear that love is not enough "


I am not worried about Biden. I like my life in the US right now. (I’ve had much worse).
I am worried about the Trumpian nutcases who carry AR15s and like to kill anything they don’t like.
Today nobody is afraid of Democrats. Normal people fear angry misguided Republicans.

Biden will win and will take those AR 15 away so what are you worried about??

Its all going be alright

What do you fear most?”
"I fear that love is not enough "


I hope so.
I see no need for buying a weapon designed for war to protect against my neighbor.
I am happy with my old reliable hunting guns. They are collector items now.
Never used or needed them to shoot at another person.

But I do score 1 1/2 " group at 50 yards… :partying_face:

no more talk about 3rd parties ruining bidens reelection chances. Ok??

What do you fear most?”
"I fear that love is not enough "


1 Like

What good are third parties that produce mini demagogue, such as the one-time hero Ralph Nader - - who’s, so far as I’m concerned is as morally culpable, in what happen afterwards, as is Dick Cheney, and the Bush dolt.

So the idealists got Cheney & Bush instead, rather than a thinking man like Al Gore. Bet he wouldn’t have ignored his National Security advisors - the rest is history. Bet he wouldn’t have totally ignored the coming global warming reality, instead peddle to the metal. Our children will weep are our …

I know, don’t feed the trolls, but once in a while facts need to be brought to the table.

1 Like

I agree, my posts are mainly designed to inform the casual reader, rather than the conspiracy theorists.

Why people believe in conspiracy theories

These aren’t the only conspiracy theories making inroads right now. A September Pew Research Center survey found that more than half of Americans have heard at least a little about QAnon, the complicated web of pro-Trump conspiracy theories that originated on the message board 4chan.

In November, two candidates who voiced support for QAnon theories were elected to Congress. So how do conspiracy theories like these get started and why do they persist?

The dangerous irony is that QAnon is actually conspiring to spread disinformation to the general public, even resorting to accusing the democratic status quo as a “deep state” conspiracy that needs to be “torn down”.

Speak about duplicity.

1 Like

Do you know that there is a conspiracy theory that the term conspiracy theory was created by the CIA to discredit people with conspiracy theories?

Do your own research.

The truth is out there.

Also, people who say scientific papers and peer review are the standard for establishing facts, do not accept the scientic papers that are peer reviewed concerning how you reach people who don’t accept facts.

The data is more recent and further studies are needed, but results are so far consistent.

Let us not forget, there is a
huge difference between Geophysical Sciences and Psychological Sciences.

And in the end there needs to be a fundamental choice people make,
Is honest understanding, more important than my ego.

Or is it a case of,
What I believe is supreme and damned the person who tries to dissuade me."
“How dare anyone “attack” my beliefs.”

Much more to be said on this topic, . . .

Why does that matter? Psychology covers the belief mechanisms, how we form worldviews, but the views part, well that’s everything, science or not. Why would you treat someone as anything but a human who has flaws and an imperfect mind just because the topic is Geophysical Science?

Yipes that went south.

But the subject matter is on an entirely different level from the straightforward subject that the geophysical science study.

Geophysical forces have no consciousness, they don’t play tricks, they can truly be predictable, given a simple enough question and in-depth enough information.

The human subject has consciousness and emotions and needs and desires and is self-centered, self-serving (a requirement of survival, the extent of the self-centeredness … is where things get real complicated and unpredictable in a real hurry.

You aren’t actually telling me that I should think there aren’t profoundly important differences,
in the conclusion we can take from a geophysical study, compared to a psychological study??

That’s a good question.
I have no idea what it means, or what it’s asking.
We don’t study people via geology, or climatology or such.
I was talking about the general reliability of studies originating from the respective science.

I’m talking about the psychology of belief in fake science. It doesn’t matter if it’s AGW or flat earth. Studies show that you can’t break through that using facts alone. You have to find a connection, some meaning, some motivation, their history, then you can talk science.

I’m surprised you are having so much trouble with this. I’ll link the studies in the Issues section thread I started. Meanwhile, look at what “loveis notenough” is doing. He gave me a bunch of links on Ukraine, and he’s sure I don’t know what’s in them because I have come to different conclusions.

It must be a first for CFI. The moderator of all people complaining that a poster has provided links !! This was after disclosing that he hasnt heard chomskys reasons for saying Russian was provoked.!

Criticised for not providing links and then criticised for providing links!
What is the world coming to ?..

What do you fear most?”
"I fear that love is not enough "


I’m not complaining. I’m discussing how providing links is not an automatic road to understanding. You have difficulty parsing out sentences lovey. Either that or you know exactly what I meant, and you are just trolling. Either way, it’s a waste of my time to attempt to engage in discussions with you.

You ask for his reasons, i gave you his reasons. Discuss

What do you fear most?”
"I fear that love is not enough "


You don’t discuss. You accuse. You twist words.

We’re letting rule violations go a little longer than usual, but we are discussing them amongst the staff. Be clear, as a moderator, I think you have violated many rules repeatedly.

1 Like