reason.com Open in urlscan Pro
75.2.24.81  Public Scan

URL: https://reason.com/volokh/2024/02/08/trump-v-anderson-professor-akhil-reed-amar-and-the-constitutionality-of-the-pr...
Submission Tags: trump gop republican right wing extremist maga eu europe european union election democrat Search All
Submission: On February 12 via manual from US — Scanned from US

Form analysis 3 forms found in the DOM

GET https://reason.com/

<form role="search" method="get" class="search-form" action="https://reason.com/">
  <label>
    <span class="screen-reader-text">Search for:</span>
    <input type="search" class="search-field" placeholder="Search …" value="" name="s">
  </label>
  <input type="submit" class="search-submit" value="Search">
</form>

POST

<form method="post" id="gform_0" class="recaptcha-v3-initialized"><input type="hidden" name="login_redirect" value="/volokh/2024/02/08/trump-v-anderson-professor-akhil-reed-amar-and-the-constitutionality-of-the-presidential-succession-act/">
  <div class="gform_heading">
    <h3 class="gform_title">Login Form</h3>
  </div>
  <div class="gform_body">
    <div id="gform_fields_login" class="gform_fields top_label">
      <div id="field_0_1" class="gfield gfield--type-text gfield_contains_required field_sublabel_below gfield--no-description field_description_below gfield_visibility_visible" data-js-reload="field_0_1"><label class="gfield_label gform-field-label"
          for="input_1">Username<span class="gfield_required"><span class="gfield_required gfield_required_text">(Required)</span></span></label>
        <div class="ginput_container ginput_container_text"><input name="input_1" id="input_1" type="text" value="" class="" aria-required="true" aria-invalid="false"> </div>
      </div>
      <div id="field_0_2" class="gfield gfield--type-text gfield_contains_required field_sublabel_below gfield--no-description field_description_below gfield_visibility_visible" data-js-reload="field_0_2"><label class="gfield_label gform-field-label"
          for="input_2">Password<span class="gfield_required"><span class="gfield_required gfield_required_text">(Required)</span></span></label>
        <div class="ginput_container ginput_container_text"><input name="input_2" id="input_2" type="password" value="" class="" aria-required="true" aria-invalid="false"> </div>
      </div>
      <div id="field_0_3" class="gfield gfield--type-remember_me field_sublabel_below gfield--no-description field_description_below hidden_label gfield_visibility_visible" data-js-reload="field_0_3"><label
          class="gfield_label gform-field-label screen-reader-text gfield_label_before_complex"></label>
        <div class="ginput_container ginput_container_checkbox">
          <div class="gfield_checkbox" id="input_3">
            <div class="gchoice gchoice_3">
              <input class="gfield-choice-input" name="input_3.1" type="checkbox" value="1" id="choice_3">
              <label for="choice_3" id="label_3">Remember Me</label>
            </div>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </div>
  </div>
  <div class="gform_footer top_label"> <button type="submit" id="gform_submit_button_0" class="gform_button button"
      onclick="if(window[&quot;gf_submitting_0&quot;]){return false;}  if( !jQuery(&quot;#gform_0&quot;)[0].checkValidity || jQuery(&quot;#gform_0&quot;)[0].checkValidity()){window[&quot;gf_submitting_0&quot;]=true;}  "
      onkeypress="if( event.keyCode == 13 ){ if(window[&quot;gf_submitting_0&quot;]){return false;} if( !jQuery(&quot;#gform_0&quot;)[0].checkValidity || jQuery(&quot;#gform_0&quot;)[0].checkValidity()){window[&quot;gf_submitting_0&quot;]=true;}  jQuery(&quot;#gform_0&quot;).trigger(&quot;submit&quot;,[true]); }">Login</button>
    <input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="is_submit_0" value="1">
    <input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_submit" value="0">
    <input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_unique_id" value="">
    <input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="state_0" value="WyJbXSIsIjVmZDk0MDRiMTc0NTYwODJmYTIwNGZlZDYxN2ViYzJjIl0=">
    <input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_target_page_number_0" id="gform_target_page_number_0" value="0">
    <input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_source_page_number_0" id="gform_source_page_number_0" value="1">
    <input type="hidden" name="gform_field_values" value="">
  </div>
</form>

POST /volokh/2024/02/08/trump-v-anderson-professor-akhil-reed-amar-and-the-constitutionality-of-the-presidential-succession-act/#gf_16

<form method="post" enctype="multipart/form-data" target="gform_ajax_frame_16" id="gform_16" action="/volokh/2024/02/08/trump-v-anderson-professor-akhil-reed-amar-and-the-constitutionality-of-the-presidential-succession-act/#gf_16" data-formid="16"
  novalidate="" class="recaptcha-v3-initialized">
  <div class="gf_invisible ginput_recaptchav3" data-sitekey="6LeMnkUaAAAAALL8T1-XAyB7vxpOeTExu6KwR48-" data-tabindex="0"><input id="input_121380b96c1ee21dced14cb8eebf698d" class="gfield_recaptcha_response" type="hidden"
      name="input_121380b96c1ee21dced14cb8eebf698d" value=""></div>
  <div class="gform-body gform_body">
    <div id="gform_fields_16" class="gform_fields top_label form_sublabel_below description_below">
      <div id="field_16_2" class="gfield gfield--type-email gfield--width-full gfield_contains_required field_sublabel_below gfield--no-description field_description_below gfield_visibility_visible" data-js-reload="field_16_2"><label
          class="gfield_label gform-field-label" for="input_16_2">Email<span class="gfield_required"><span class="gfield_required gfield_required_text">(Required)</span></span></label>
        <div class="ginput_container ginput_container_email">
          <input name="input_2" id="input_16_2" type="email" value="" class="large" placeholder="e.g. jane@example.com" aria-required="true" aria-invalid="false">
        </div>
      </div>
      <div id="field_16_1" class="gfield gfield--type-hidden gform_hidden field_sublabel_below gfield--no-description field_description_below gfield_visibility_visible" data-js-reload="field_16_1">
        <div class="ginput_container ginput_container_text"><input name="input_1" id="input_16_1" type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" aria-invalid="false" value="11"></div>
      </div>
      <div id="field_16_3" class="gfield gfield--type-honeypot gform_validation_container field_sublabel_below gfield--has-description field_description_below gfield_visibility_visible" data-js-reload="field_16_3"><label
          class="gfield_label gform-field-label" for="input_16_3">Comments</label>
        <div class="ginput_container"><input name="input_3" id="input_16_3" type="text" value="" autocomplete="new-password"></div>
        <div class="gfield_description" id="gfield_description_16_3">This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.</div>
      </div>
    </div>
  </div>
  <div class="gform_footer top_label"> <button type="submit" id="gform_submit_button_16" class="gform_button button"
      onclick="if(window[&quot;gf_submitting_16&quot;]){return false;}  if( !jQuery(&quot;#gform_16&quot;)[0].checkValidity || jQuery(&quot;#gform_16&quot;)[0].checkValidity()){window[&quot;gf_submitting_16&quot;]=true;}  "
      onkeypress="if( event.keyCode == 13 ){ if(window[&quot;gf_submitting_16&quot;]){return false;} if( !jQuery(&quot;#gform_16&quot;)[0].checkValidity || jQuery(&quot;#gform_16&quot;)[0].checkValidity()){window[&quot;gf_submitting_16&quot;]=true;}  jQuery(&quot;#gform_16&quot;).trigger(&quot;submit&quot;,[true]); }">Submit</button>
    <input type="hidden" name="gform_ajax" value="form_id=16&amp;title=&amp;description=1&amp;tabindex=0&amp;theme=data-form-theme='gravity-theme'">
    <input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="is_submit_16" value="1">
    <input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_submit" value="16">
    <input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_unique_id" value="">
    <input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="state_16" value="WyJbXSIsIjVmZDk0MDRiMTc0NTYwODJmYTIwNGZlZDYxN2ViYzJjIl0=">
    <input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_target_page_number_16" id="gform_target_page_number_16" value="0">
    <input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_source_page_number_16" id="gform_source_page_number_16" value="1">
    <input type="hidden" name="gform_field_values" value="newsletter=11">
  </div>
  <p style="display: none !important;" class="akismet-fields-container" data-prefix="ak_"><label>Δ<textarea name="ak_hp_textarea" cols="45" rows="8" maxlength="100"></textarea></label><input type="hidden" id="ak_js_1" name="ak_js"
      value="1707781747722">
    <script>
      document.getElementById("ak_js_1").setAttribute("value", (new Date()).getTime());
    </script>
  </p>
</form>

Text Content

 * Latest
 * Magazine
   * Current Issue
   * Archives
   * Subscribe
   * Crossword
 * Video
 * Podcasts
   * All Shows
   * The Reason Roundtable
   * The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
   * The Soho Forum Debates
   * Just Asking Questions
   * The Best of Reason Magazine
   * Why We Can't Have Nice Things
 * Volokh
 * Newsletters
 * Donate
   * Donate Online
   * Donate Crypto
   * Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
   * Torchbearer Society
   * Planned Giving
 * Subscribe
   * Print/Digital Subscriptions
   * Gift Subscriptions

Search for:


LOGIN FORM

Username(Required)

Password(Required)

Remember Me
Login
Create new account
Forgot password



THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always
independent

About The Volokh Conspiracy
 * Editorial Independence
 * Who we are
 * Books
 * Volokh Daily Email
 * Archives
 * DMCA
 * RSS


TRUMP V. ANDERSON, PROFESSOR AKHIL REED AMAR, AND THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
PRESIDENTIAL SUCCESSION ACT


PROFESSOR AMAR'S ARGUMENT RENDERS THE PRESIDENTIAL SUCCESSION ACTS OF 1792 AND
1947 UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY BARRING PUTTING THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES AND THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPER OF THE SENATE IN THE LINE OF
SUCCESSION TO THE PRESIDENCY

Steven Calabresi | 2.8.2024 2:00 AM

Professors Akhil Reed Amar and David Vikram Amar argue that President Donald
Trump is covered by the phrase in the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, that
disqualifies a person who holds "any office *** under the United States" from
being eligible to be elected President, if he has engaged in an insurrection,
after swearing an oath to support the Constitution.  The Amar brother's position
is that the presidency is an "office *** under the United States", and that
Donald Trump is disqualified from being elected President in 2024 even though
the entire Republican Party overwhelmingly wants Trump to be their nominee.

The Incompatibility Clause of Article I, Section 6 says that "no Person holding
any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his
Continuance in Office."  And, the Presidential Succession Clause of Article II,
Section 1 says that in the event of a vacancy in both the presidency and the
vice presidency "Congress may by Law [declare] what Officer [legislative or
executive] shall then act as President."  For most of American history, the
Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the
Senate have been ahead of the Cabinet in the line of succession to the
presidency.  That arrangement is as American as apple pie.

Powered By

00:00/02:44
10 Sec


Ukraine Says Russian Forces Use Starlink Terminals




Next
Stay





Under Professor Amar's theory that the President holds an Office under the
United States for the purposes of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is
unconstitutional for Congress to put the Speaker of the House of Representatives
or the President Pro Tempore of the Senate in the line of succession to the
Presidency, as Congress has done since 1947, because doing so would violate the
Incompatibility Clause.   (A Member of either House would unconstitutionally get
to hold, simultaneously, their congressional seat and an Office under the United
States while they served as Acting President).

In fact, the Presidential Succession Act of 1792, which was passed by the Second
Congress, which was full of framers of the Constitution, and which was signed
into law by President George Washington put legislative officers in the line of
succession to the presidency because the Founding Fathers did not believe that
the Presidency was an Office under the United States.  The Founding Fathers
discussed and debated this very question, and James Madison lost while making
the exact same argument that the Amar brothers make as to Section 3 of the
Fourteenth Amendment that the Presidency is an Office under the United States.

The Amar brothers think that our current setup of having legislative officers in
the line of succession to the presidency is unconstitutional as they argued in
print in Akhil Reed Amar & Vikram David Amar, Is the Presidential Succession Law
Constitutional?, 48 Stanford Law Review 113 (1995-1996).  I once agreed with the
Amar brothers on this issue but have since changed my mind.  I strongly doubt
that the nine current justices of the Supreme Court realize that any ruling that
Donald Trump is ineligible to be on the Colorado primary ballot will end up as a
side-effect gutting the Presidential Succession law.

The Supreme Court in Trump v. Anderson should not hold that the Presidency is
an office under the United States because, if it does so, the Presidential
Succession Acts of both 1947, and of 1792, would be rendered unconstitutional,
even though the Founding Fathers meant for legislative officers to be eligible
to be put into the line of succession to the Presidency, and such legislative
officers have been in the line of succession to the presidency for most of
American history. The Amar brothers would repudiate 171 years of historical
practice of legislative officers being in the line of succession to the
presidency.  It is far more democratic to put elected Speakers of the House of
Representatives and Presidents Pro Tempore of the Senate in the line of
succession to the Presidency than it is to put un-elected Cabinet Secretaries in
the line of succession.   The Amar brothers are just plain wrong in arguing that
the President holds an "office *** under the United States" under Section Three
of the Fourteenth Amendment.



They are also wrong in Trump v. Anderson in calling on the Supreme Court to let
each of the fifty States have their own rule as to what constitutes an
"insurrection".  The whole point of the Fourteenth Amendment was to rein in
State power and to impose some uniform national rules.  This is especially
needed with rules concerning eligibility to hold national offices.  See U.S.
Term Limits v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995); Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486
(1969).  Letting 1,000 flowers bloom on the fifty State Supreme Courts, as to
presidential eligibility requirements, is more likely to produce a weed garden
than it is the Rose Garden.

To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.

Email(Required)


Comments

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Submit

Δ

NEXT: All Blackman-Tillman Articles, Presentations, Amicus Briefs, Commentary,
and Blog posts on Section 3 and Insurrection

Steven Calabresi is the Clayton J. & Henry R. Barber Professor of Law at
Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, where he specializes in constitutional law.
He also teaches regularly at the Yale Law School. Before going into teaching, he
worked in the Reagan White House, and was a Special Assistant for Attorney
General Edwin Meese III.

Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly
versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Show Comments (30)


LATEST

SCOTUS IS TROUBLED BY THE CLAIM THAT STATES CAN DISQUALIFY TRUMP FROM THE
ELECTION AS AN INSURRECTIONIST

Jacob Sullum | 2.12.2024 1:35 PM

PROTECT ACT COULD REQUIRE REMOVAL OF ALL EXISTING PORN ONLINE

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 2.12.2024 12:00 PM

BIDEN'S BIZARRE 'SHRINKFLATION' NONSENSE

Eric Boehm | 2.12.2024 11:15 AM

DELINQUENT COUNTRIES

Liz Wolfe | 2.12.2024 9:30 AM

JOE BIDEN'S NO GOOD, VERY BAD DAY

J.D. Tuccille | 2.12.2024 7:00 AM






RECOMMENDED

PODCAST: BIDEN’S COGNITIVE SHRINKFLATION

SCOTUS TROUBLED BY CLAIM THAT STATES CAN DISQUALIFY TRUMP FROM BALLOT AS
INSURRECTIONIST

PROTECT ACT COULD REQUIRE REMOVAL OF ALL EXISTING PORN ONLINE

BIDEN'S BIZARRE 'SHRINKFLATION' NONSENSE

MONDAY OPEN THREAD


 * About
 * Browse Topics
 * Events
 * Staff
 * Jobs
 * Donate
 * Advertise
 * Subscribe
 * Contact
 * Media
 * Shop
 * Amazon

Reason FacebookReason TwitterReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeReason
ItunesReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of
Service apply.



Notifications