I know everyone finds this interpretation surprising, and even laughable, but y'all are missing the mark on the source of this theory.

William Baude and Michael Paulson are two, very well respected, conservative constitutional law scholars. Some of their theories are libertarian, and I think William Baude is a "Never Trump" conservative, but they are not desperate libs.

They are publishing a full article on their interpretation in the Penn Law Review (Penn, of course, is Trump's alma mater). Say what you will, but two respected Con Law Professors are not going to submit an article to Penn Law Review that is "laughable and desperate." They have reputations to uphold.

Their theory has been endorsed by Steven Calabresi, another Conservative Con Law professor who appears to be a Never Trumper. He worked in the Reagan White House and for AG Meese

Reason.com

The theory might not prevail, but it isn't crazy. The Fourteenth Amendment did not expire. It added an additional requirement to hold government office. To be eligible to run for President, a person must...

1. Be a natural born citizen
2. Be 35 years or older
3. Be a resident of the US for at least 14 years. AND
4. Not violated an oath of Office to defend the Constitution by engaging in "insurrection or rebellion".

No court decision or Congressional action is necessary for a SOS to recognize the first 3 requirements, so why can't they recognize the 4th requirement on their own?

There will be due process under this theory. If a SOS decided that Biden was born in Kenya instead of the US and therefore left him off the ballot, Biden would sue and rely on his birthday certificate as proof.

Likewise, if a SOS refuses to put Trump on the ballot because he engaged in insurrection, Trump would bring a suit.

It is also possible that another Republican candidate could sue during the primaries to keep Trump off the ballots.

This post was edited on 8/11/23 at 4:17 pm