In a new discussion with MSNBC host Ali Velshi, former federal Judge J. Michael Luttig argued — as has been argued previously — that no criminal conviction is required to enforce a Constitutional block on holding office against former President Donald Trump. The Constitutional restrictions in question are in the 14th Amendment, which blocks individuals from holding office if they previously took an oath to defend the Constitution then engaged in insurrection.
And the connection made to Trump is January 6, 2021, a connection that has driven multiple ongoing legal challenges to Trump’s potential appearance on the ballot in 2024. Two such cases have now entered oral arguments in court. Luttig argued on the air that the relevant standard for applying these restrictions he believes fit Trump is whether Trump previously engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution rather than the U.S. more generally. Trump’s obviously well documented attempts to stay in power despite the documentation of his loss to Joe Biden could fit the bill, considering the Constitutionally established rules for presidential terms.
“It does not require a finding by the Congress of the United States, nor does it require a criminal conviction of the former president for insurrection or rebellion,” Luttig said of applying those Constitutional restrictions, adding: “The United States Supreme Court will never have any difficulty understanding that the courts — first, the lower courts and ultimately the Supreme Court of the United States are the proper institutions of government to decide this question. Why? Because it is a pure question of Constitutional law whether the former president engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States.”
Arguments in the Colorado case in which those Constitutional restrictions are under dispute are ongoing. Trump has been tied in contexts including the federal criminal case from Jack Smith alleging attempted election interference to the events of January 6, though Luttig’s interpretation would mean that might not even be needed, relying instead on Trump’s subversion attempts spread across those post-election months. Check out Luttig’s commentary below:
