Yes we do have an originalist leaning SCOTUS - though some people invoke originalism when it suits them, and I doubt they would if this question ever came to them.Donn Beach wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 5:57 amMaybe it could get somewhere, this is from the Federalist Society. We have an originalist leaning supreme court these days
Which is exactly what the lawsuit is about“We thought: ‘We’re constitutional scholars, and this is an important constitutional question. We ought to figure out what’s really going on here.’ And the more we dug into it,” he said, “the more we realized that we had something to add.”
What they added were 126 pages of airtight argument, from a conservative, originalist perspective, for the case to disqualify Trump. Federalist Society co-founder Steven G. Calabresi lauded it as “a tour de force.”
Yet making that case and enforcing it are two separate things. As a like-minded constitutional expert, Mark A. Graber, wrote in an earlier and shorter dive into Section 3, “The only question that remains is whether — and how — that will happen.”
Baude and Paulsen say the enforcers should be “anyone whose job it is to figure out whether someone is legally qualified” to hold office and to be included on state ballots — that is, state election administrators, typically the secretaries of state.
I suspect that there will not be any serious attempt to keep Trump off the ballot in any state. A lot of noise, maybe, but amounting to zero. The 14th amendment was intended to address the people who participated in the Civi War on the side of the Confederacy ... correct? If Trump is found guilty of all the things he is charged with (by the Special Counsel and the Fulton County DA) I think there would be a case to be made that he was lying and being fraudulent about the 2020 election, but I'm not sure that is the same thing as trying to overthrow the government or start a new country (as in the case of the Confederacy). Maybe I'm missing something.