#TrumpAccountability | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

taqato-alim · 1 year ago

Text

Analysis of: Amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that former President Trump is disqualified to run for public office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment

PDF Download: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/299107/20240129171610494_23-719_Amici%20Brief.pdf

Summary of the key points from the discussion:

The document is an amicus curiae brief submitted to the US Supreme Court in a case regarding Donald Trump's eligibility to run for president again.

It argues that state courts and the Supreme Court have judicial power over presidential qualification disputes based on constitutional text and that no amendment changed this.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment must be given its fair meaning rather than a narrow construction, and was widely understood to include the president as an "officer."

The January 6th attack constituted an "insurrection…against" the Constitution by seeking to deny the peaceful transfer of power mandated by the Executive Vesting Clause and amendments.

Trump "engaged in" the insurrection by inciting violence through his speech aimed at preventing the certification of Biden's election.

The brief makes persuasive legal and historical arguments supported by evidence and shows fidelity to constitutional text and principles of interpretation.

Stakeholders impacted include the Court, Trump, Biden, Congress, future candidates, and the American public.

The reasoning is intellectually rigorous and addresses counterarguments transparently based on original public meaning.

Ethically, it prioritizes democratic processes, rule of law, facts over claims, and impartial treatment of issues.

This document is an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief submitted to the US Supreme Court.

The key attributes that identify it as an amicus brief genre include:

It is submitted by parties not directly involved in the case (former government officials here) to provide legal arguments to the Court.

It discusses the legal issues in the case indepth and provides analysis of relevant constitutional provisions, precedents, and historical context to support a particular interpretation.

It is formally structured with sections laying out arguments, citations to authority, inclusion of an appendix, etc. following the expected format for legal briefs.

The language and writing style is formal and targeted at legal/judicial audiences, citing authorities and precedent.

It aims to assist the court rather than the direct parties, showing the issues have broader implications than just those directly involved in the case.

So in terms of both form and function, this document clearly falls within the established genre of an amicus curiae brief submitted for a Supreme Court case, a genre intended to help inform the Court's legal decisionmaking.

Summary of the amici brief:

The brief argues that state courts and the US Supreme Court have the judicial power to decide disputes over a presidential candidate's qualifications under the Constitution.

This power was originally allocated to the states under the Electors Clause, and ultimately to the Supreme Court via its appellate jurisdiction.

Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gave Congress additional enforcement power but did not eliminate the pre-existing judicial power of state courts and the Supreme Court.

No other constitutional amendment changes this allocation of judicial power or assigns such power to Congress.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment must be given its "fair meaning" rather than a narrow construction, especially since it emerged from the Civil War.

In 1868 when the 14th Amendment was ratified, the "President of the United States" was widely understood to be an "officer of the United States."

The January 6, 2021 attempt to prevent Congress from certifying the election results through force was an "insurrection…against" the Constitution.

The peaceful transfer of power is mandated by the Executive Vesting Clause, the 12th Amendment, and the 20th Amendment.

Trump "engaged in" the insurrection by inciting the violent mob through his speech, even if he did not personally commit violence.

Evaluation of how well the amicus brief engages with and relates to the supreme law of the affected country, the United States Constitution:

Centrality of constitutional text: The core focus is a close reading and application of the most directly relevant constitutional clauses to the issues at hand.

Originalist interpretation: An original public meaning approach is taken, grounded in founding-era context and sources to interpret clauses as ratified.

Holistic assessment: Relevant clauses are analyzed both individually and together as part of an interrelated whole (e.g. factoring in amendments together).

Precedent consideration: Both key founding intentions and relevant precedent rulings interpreting provisions are thoroughly discussed.

Consistency evaluation: Arguments are structured around demonstrating logical consistency with overarching constitutional structures/principles.

Engagement with counterarguments: Attempts are made to engage potential alternative textualist perspectives rather than just asserting one view.

Overall, the detailed emphasis on the specific wording of clauses both individually and systematically, due attention to original public meaning and precedent, and efforts to ensure consistency indicate the brief strongly prioritizes meaningful engagement with the text of the supreme law it is commenting upon. This lends it credibility in relation to the U.S. Constitution.

Evaluation of the key arguments:

Judicial power argument: This argument is well supported by careful textual analysis of relevant Constitutional clauses and founding-era context. It directly counters Trump's position.

Officer argument: Though a narrower point, it is effective that Trump concedes the key aspect (president is an officer) while the brief cites supportive context.

Insurrection argument: Defining insurrection as denial of peaceful transfer is a persuasive interpretation aligned with Constitutional mandates and historical precedent of 1861 secession attempts.

Incitement argument: The contention that causing threatened/actual violence through speech constitutes engagement is legally sound and contextual evidence cited for Trump's intent strengthens this claim.

Constitutional fidelity: Overall the brief exhibits strong constitutional textualism through principle-driven interpretation anchored in original public meaning - lending the analysis credibility.

The arguments presented appear well supported by both evidence and reason. While legal experts can reasonably disagree on interpretations, the brief's key positions seem well grounded and its analysis of the language and context is thoughtful. No obvious logical flaws or omissions were identified. The arguments effectively rebut the positions taken in Trump's brief.

Key stakeholders:

US Supreme Court - The intended audience, to inform the legal analysis and contribute sound legal/historical reasoning.

Donald Trump - Directly impacted by the outcome of the case and arguments made against his positions.

Joe Biden - As the duly elected incumbent president, his ability to serve is impacted.

American public - The stability of the democratic process and future elections could be influenced by the ruling.

Political parties - Depending on outcome, future nominations and contests may be affected.

Other future presidential candidates - Precedents set may influence qualifications and elections.

Congress - Division of powers between judiciary and legislature could be delineated.

Overall, while some stakeholders like Trump may be more directly affected as parties, the legal issues have broader public interest implications for how the US system of government functions now and in the future. The brief aims to assist the Court's consideration of these wider stakes through persuasive legal analysis.

Evaluation of the ethics involved in the situation described:

Democratic norms: The brief argues forcefully preventing a peaceful transfer of power fundamentally undermines democratic processes the Constitution aims to protect.

Rule of law: It contends adjudicating disputes through impartial courts, rather than unreviewable political power, upholds principles of an equitable legal system.

Constitutional integrity: Close analysis is offered to demonstrate how the arguments align with or diverge from upholding the supreme law of the land as ratified.

Truth & transparency: Reliance is placed on transparent discussion of evidence, rather than obfuscation or unfounded claims, to determine facts.

Impartiality: While advocating one conclusion, care is shown to addressing alternative views on their legal/historical merits impartially.

Civic duty: Former officials file to aid the Court based on non-partisan commitment to constitutional order, not selfish interests.

Overall, core ethical priorities of the brief appear to include safeguarding democratic and constitutional governance through commitment to facts/evidence, impartial reason, rule of law, and disinterested service - all hallmarks of principled legal/scholarly ethics. No overt unethical biases or tactics are apparent.

Quality of reasoning:

Textualism: The brief closely analyzes the specific wording and contextual meanings of relevant constitutional clauses, applying an original public meaning approach. This adheres to principles of textualist legal interpretation.

Logical coherence: The arguments flow logically from one point to the next, building a case based on interrelated evidentiary threads (e.g. starting with federalism foundations and moving clause-by-clause).

Use of evidence: Strong empirical support is provided through citations of founding-era sources, legal precedents, historical works, dictionaries, and the record established in lower court proceedings.

Addressing counterarguments: Attempts are made to directly rebut alternative views raised rather than just asserting one perspective. Relevant objections are substantively engaged.

Transparency: Assumptions and line of reasoning are clearly spelled out, leaving evidentiary trail open to scrutiny rather than relying on opacity.

Intellectual rigor: A high level of consistent analytical rigor is applied throughout in evaluating text and context without apparent lapses.

Overall, the reasoning exhibits qualities expected of rigorous legal/scholarly analysis through its focus on principle-driven interpretation of relevant sources and transparent engagement with alternative perspectives. While reasonable people can disagree on conclusions, the quality of reason itself appears solid.

Logical fallacies:

Appeal to Authority - The brief appeals to the expertise and credibility of the amici signatories. However, this is a standard and valid technique for amicus briefs to establish credibility. Not a clear fallacy.

Strawman - Nowhere does the brief clearly misrepresent Trump's arguments. It accurately repeats and rebuts the positions taken in his brief. No evident strawmanning.

Slippery Slope - The brief argues Congress having sole power could lead to abuse, but this is a reasonably argument rather than a blatant slippery slope fallacy.

False Dilemma - The brief does not frame the issues in an either-or way or ignore alternative possibilities. Multiple constitutional provisions are discussed working together.

Ad Hominem - The brief focuses on the legal and historical merits of the arguments rather than make personal attacks on Trump.

Post Hoc - The brief does not inappropriately claim historical events were caused by other events that occurred after. Causation is reasonably discussed.

In evaluation, I did not find any clear instances of logical fallacies that would meaningfully undermine the legal and historical arguments being made in the brief. At most, some techniques could be debated, but overall the reasoning appears logically sound and fallacy-free.

Common criteria for evaluating and assessment:

Credibility of Amici - The brief relies on perspectives from numerous high-ranking former officials and legal experts, lending credibility.

Clarity of Arguments - The legal arguments are clearly structured and explained in accessible language for legal audiences.

Persuasiveness - The brief compellingly applies constitutional text and history to dispute Trump's claims and support disqualification.

Relevance to Court - The brief focuses on relevant constitutional/legal issues before the court rather than simply reinforce one side.

Thoroughness - The brief thoroughly examines all key constitutional provisions and rebuts counterarguments.

Objectivity - While supporting one outcome, the brief remains evenly balanced and relies on facts/law rather than unsubstantiated claims.

Compliance with Guidelines - The brief follows standard guidelines for amicus briefs in terms of formatting, citation practices, etc.

Innovation - The brief introduces some novel historical evidence and analysis that could helpfully inform the Court's decision.

Overall, this brief excels in terms of the credibility and expertise it carries, the clarity and persuasiveness of its arguments, its thorough examination of key issues, compliance with genre guidelines, and potential to innovatively inform the Court's ruling. It achieves the intended purpose of an effective amicus brief.

0 notes