When the Supreme Court considers whether Donald J. Trump is barred from appearing on Colorado’s ballot, a professor’s scholarship, long relegated to the fringes, will take center stage.

In the world of American legal scholarship, Seth Barrett Tillman is an outsider in more ways than one. An associate professor at a university in Ireland, he has put forward unusual interpretations of the meaning of the U.S. Constitution that for years have largely gone ignored — if not outright dismissed as crackpot.

But at 60, Professor Tillman is enjoying some level of vindication. When the U.S. Supreme Court considers on Thursday whether former President Donald J. Trump is barred from Colorado’s primary ballot, a seemingly counterintuitive theory that Professor Tillman has championed for more than 15 years will take center stage and could shape the presidential election.

The Constitution uses various terms to refer to government officers or offices. The conventional view is that they all share the same meaning. But by his account, each is distinct — and that, crucially for the case before the court, the particular phrase “officer of the United States” refers only to appointed positions, not the presidency.

Archive

The hearing is being live-streamed Feb 8th @ 10am ET.

  • neptune@dmv.socialEnglish
    6·
    5 months ago

    What our amici say: 25 historians including James McPherson, the George Henry Davis 1886 Professor Emeritus of United States History at Princeton University.

    “For historians, contemporary evidence from the decision-makers who sponsored, backed, and voted for the 14th Amendment is most probative. Analysis of this evidence demonstrates that decision-makers crafted Section 3 to cover the President and to create an enduring check on insurrection, requiring no additional action from Congress.”

    You know, maybe I would agree with this guy if it weren’t pretty clear that the people who wrote the 14th amendment didn’t agree with his interpretation. https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/analysis/amici-in-14th-amendment-case-rebut-trumps-arguments/