A novel legal theory from two conservative legal scholars published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review that a section of the 14th Amendment makes Donald Trump ineligible to run for president may be getting a court hearing in Florida.
As Ballot Access news editor emeritus Richard Winger notes:
On August 24, a Florida voter, Lawrence Caplan, filed a federal lawsuit seeking to bar former President Donald Trump from being placed on 2024 ballots as a presidential candidate. Caplan v Trump, s.d., 0:23cv-61618.
Caplan, who appears to be representing himself in the case, writes:
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which provides for the disqualification of an individual who commits insurrection against our government has remained on the books for some one hundred and fifty plus years without ever facing question as to its legitimacy. While one can certainly argue that it has not been thoroughly tested, that fact is only because we have not faced an insurrection against our federal government such as the one while we faced on January 6, 2021. It should also be noted that President Trump has since made statements to the effect that should he be elected, he would advocate the total elimination of the US Constitution and the creation of a new charter more in line with his personal values.
Winger believes Caplan’s suit is “misguided:”
The Fourteenth Amendment “insurrection clause” bars individuals from being sworn in to certain offices, but it does not bar them from seeking the office. When the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, there was no mechanism to prevent any voter from voting for any candidate.
Caplan appears to be taking the law review article’s authors, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulson, at their word:
“No official should shrink from these duties. It would be wrong — indeed, arguably itself a breach of one’s constitutional oath of office — to abandon one’s responsibilities of faithful interpretation, application, and enforcement of Section Three,” Bode and Paulsen write.
Alternatively, ordinary citizens could file challenges on the same grounds with state election officials themselves.
And other such suits may emerge over the coming weeks. I’m not convinced any federal judge will be willing to read Section 3 like Baude and Paulson say it should be. It’s not because the Section’s words aren’t clear – they are.
My concerns are akin to those of Cato’s Walter Olsen, who writes:
…no one should assume that just because Baude and Paulsen have made a powerful intellectual case for their originalist reading, that the Supreme Court will declare itself convinced and disqualify Trump. Justice Antonin Scalia memorably described himself as a “faint‐hearted originalist,” which captures something important about the thinking of almost every Justice—if overruling a wrongly decided old case threatens to disrupt settled expectations to the point of spreading chaos and grief through society, most of them will refrain. Stare decisis, and a general preference for continuity in law, still matters.
Exactly. While some judges may nurse images of themselves as bold crusaders for justice, most jurists aren’t eager to upset established practice and precedent on a whim. Though, to be fair to the times when such upsets have occurred – Brown v. Board of Education, for example, or Griswold v. Connecticut – have been warranted, necessary, and beneficial.
Does that apply in the Caplan case? A court will decide. But as I’ve long said about Trump, the only court he cares about is public opinion. If voters reject him, that will carry more weight and sanction than any court could ever deliver.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk. It first appeared in American Liberty News. Republished with permission.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) suggested this week that holding Attorney General Pam Bondi in contempt remains an option as Congress presses the Justice Department over its handling of the long-awaited Epstein files.
Massie, who helped author legislation requiring the release of government records tied to convicted sex predator Jeffrey Epstein, said lawmakers are still not receiving full access to unredacted documents — despite the deadline set by Congress.
Appearing Tuesday on CNN’s The Source with Kaitlan Collins, Massie accused the Justice Department of failing to deliver what the law requires and raised concerns that redactions appear inconsistent and unjustified.
“We have not had access to totally unredacted files,” Massie said, adding that names such as Epstein associate and former Victoria’s Secret CEO Leslie Wexner have been blacked out “for no apparent reason.”
Massie said the DOJ’s refusal to acknowledge gaps in its production makes it difficult for Congress — and the public — to trust that the full truth is being released.
“If they’ll admit that they’re making mistakes and that their document production is not done, I could trust them,” Massie said. “But I can’t trust them if they say… this is it, there’s no more.”
The Kentucky Republican noted he would have limited time to question Bondi when she appeared Wednesday before the House Judiciary Committee, warning that stronger measures could follow if answers are not forthcoming.
Massie first raised the possibility of using Congress’s “inherent contempt” powers against Bondi in a weekend interview, calling it the most direct way to force compliance.
“The quickest way… to get justice for these victims is to bring inherent contempt against Pam Bondi,” he said.
Still, Massie acknowledged the challenge of pursuing contempt charges against the nation’s top law enforcement official, noting that referrals often run through the same department under scrutiny.
“You know, it’s hard to refer a contempt charge… on an attorney general to the attorney general,” Massie said. “This is the problem that you run into.”
Instead, he suggested Congress may need to compel testimony from individuals named in the documents, similar to efforts already underway by the House Oversight Committee.
Bondi’s appearance on Wednesday quickly turned tense as Democrats confronted her over the Justice Department’s redaction process — particularly allegations that some victims’ identities were improperly exposed while other information, including references to powerful individuals, was withheld.
Watch:
Rep. Thomas Massie to Pam Bondi: "Who is responsible?…Who in your organization made this massive failure and released the victims' names?" pic.twitter.com/ApohNitVDa
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) pressed Bondi to apologize directly to Epstein survivors seated in the hearing room, accusing the DOJ of mishandling sensitive records.
Jayapal asks Epstein survivors in the hearing room to stand and raise their hand if they still haven't been able to meet with Bondi's DOJ. Every single one of them does so. Jayapal then gives Bondi an opportunity to apologize to survivors. Bondi responds by trying to attack… pic.twitter.com/iAG0RSsisv
Bondi declined to issue a direct apology for the department’s release process, offering general sympathy for victims but defending the DOJ’s actions. The exchange escalated into a sharp back-and-forth, with Bondi accusing Jayapal of engaging in “theatrics.”
🚨 This is the moment Rep. Lauren Boebert walked out of the DOJ secure room after viewing parts of the UNREDACTED Epstein files — and you can see the horror on her face.
She's visibly shaken, struggling to speak, eyes wide like she's seen something straight out of a nightmare.… pic.twitter.com/2k936LKado
Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) struggled to bring the room back to order as lawmakers debated whether the Justice Department has been transparent — or selective — in what it has released.
Liberal commentator and podcast host Briahna Joy Gray says she knows “many” people on the political left who would rather support Tucker Carlson for president than progressive star Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — a striking claim as early maneuvering around the 2028 presidential race begins to intensify.
Gray made the remarks during a recent episode of her Bad Faith podcast while discussing divisions inside the broader progressive movement and dissatisfaction among some left-wing voters.
“It’s crazy, I know many people on the left who would happily vote for Tucker Carlson before AOC,” Gray said.
Gray added that she finds herself frustrated by that reality because she said she would not encourage people to support either figure.
“I am frustrated by that dynamic because I don’t want Tucker Carlson to be president,” she said. “I also can’t see myself damaging my own credibility by telling someone to vote for AOC. These options hurt us all.”
Gray argued that Carlson has made numerous controversial comments over the years, including past remarks on immigration and cultural assimilation, but suggested some voters may find him newly appealing following what she described as a political “rebirth.”
Carlson’s public image has shifted significantly in recent years.
Once one of the most influential voices in conservative media during his run at Fox News, Carlson later departed the network and increasingly broke with major figures in the Republican establishment, including President Donald Trump.
More recently, Carlson has criticized Trump over foreign policy and U.S. involvement overseas.
“You have not done a good job running this country. You don’t even care to try,” Carlson said last month while criticizing Trump’s priorities. “You’d rather run the world or the empire.”
Why do neocons consistently act against the interests of the United States? It’s more than neglect. It’s hate. Marjorie Taylor Greene saw it firsthand. pic.twitter.com/HGJlRfJ3bo
Carlson has also become increasingly critical of Israel and U.S. involvement in Middle East conflicts, arguing that American foreign policy has become disconnected from domestic concerns.
His break from Trump has produced mixed reactions among conservatives. Some former supporters praised his willingness to challenge Republican orthodoxy, while others viewed his criticisms as creating distance between himself and Trump’s political movement. (RELATED: Trump Cuts Tucker Carlson Loose From Political Movement)
Meanwhile, Ocasio-Cortez appears to be moving in the opposite direction politically.
The New York Democrat has become one of the most recognizable figures in the Democrat Party and is widely viewed as an early potential contender in the 2028 presidential race. She has built a massive social media following, a powerful small-dollar fundraising network and strong support among progressive activists.
Recent surveys have also suggested Ocasio-Cortez could enter a future Democrat primary with meaningful advantages. An AtlasIntel poll released recently placed her at the top of a hypothetical Democratic field with 26% support.
But despite that standing, some divisions on the left have become increasingly visible.
Critics on both the center and the populist left have questioned Ocasio-Cortez’s evolution from anti-establishment insurgent to a more integrated figure within Democratic leadership circles. Gray pointed to a recent social media dispute involving former Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene as an example.
Greene criticized Ocasio-Cortez after she declined to support an amendment Greene introduced involving Israel funding. Gray argued voters were justified in questioning Ocasio-Cortez’s priorities.
The comments also arrive as Democrats are quietly beginning to sort out what the post-Biden and post-Sanders era could look like.
While 2028 remains years away, names already circulating include Ocasio-Cortez, California Rep. Ro Khanna, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and others who could emerge as national contenders.
For now, there is no indication Carlson intends to run for office, and his name has not regularly appeared among likely presidential candidates but there’s still plenty of time for him to make a surprising move.
Watch the full podcast:
Liberal commentator and podcast host Briahna Joy Gray says she knows “many” people on the political left who would rather support Tucker Carlson for president than progressive star Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — a striking claim as early maneuvering around the 2028 presidential race begins to intensify.
Gray made the remarks during a recent episode of her Bad Faith podcast while discussing divisions inside the broader progressive movement and dissatisfaction among some left-wing voters.
“It’s crazy, I know many people on the left who would happily vote for Tucker Carlson before AOC,” Gray said.
Gray added that she finds herself frustrated by that reality because she said she would not encourage people to support either figure.
“I am frustrated by that dynamic because I don’t want Tucker Carlson to be president,” she said. “I also can’t see myself damaging my own credibility by telling someone to vote for AOC. These options hurt us all.”
Gray argued that Carlson has made numerous controversial comments over the years, including past remarks on immigration and cultural assimilation, but suggested some voters may find him newly appealing following what she described as a political “rebirth.”
Carlson’s public image has shifted significantly in recent years.
Once one of the most influential voices in conservative media during his run at Fox News, Carlson later departed the network and increasingly broke with major figures in the Republican establishment, including President Donald Trump.
More recently, Carlson has criticized Trump over foreign policy and U.S. involvement overseas.
“You have not done a good job running this country. You don’t even care to try,” Carlson said last month while criticizing Trump’s priorities. “You’d rather run the world or the empire.”
Why do neocons consistently act against the interests of the United States? It’s more than neglect. It’s hate. Marjorie Taylor Greene saw it firsthand. pic.twitter.com/HGJlRfJ3bo
Carlson has also become increasingly critical of Israel and U.S. involvement in Middle East conflicts, arguing that American foreign policy has become disconnected from domestic concerns.
His break from Trump has produced mixed reactions among conservatives. Some former supporters praised his willingness to challenge Republican orthodoxy, while others viewed his criticisms as creating distance between himself and Trump’s political movement. (RELATED: Trump Cuts Tucker Carlson Loose From Political Movement)
Meanwhile, Ocasio-Cortez appears to be moving in the opposite direction politically.
The New York Democrat has become one of the most recognizable figures in the Democrat Party and is widely viewed as an early potential contender in the 2028 presidential race. She has built a massive social media following, a powerful small-dollar fundraising network and strong support among progressive activists.
Recent surveys have also suggested Ocasio-Cortez could enter a future Democrat primary with meaningful advantages. An AtlasIntel poll released recently placed her at the top of a hypothetical Democratic field with 26% support.
But despite that standing, some divisions on the left have become increasingly visible.
Critics on both the center and the populist left have questioned Ocasio-Cortez’s evolution from anti-establishment insurgent to a more integrated figure within Democratic leadership circles. Gray pointed to a recent social media dispute involving former Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene as an example.
Greene criticized Ocasio-Cortez after she declined to support an amendment Greene introduced involving Israel funding. Gray argued voters were justified in questioning Ocasio-Cortez’s priorities.
The comments also arrive as Democrats are quietly beginning to sort out what the post-Biden and post-Sanders era could look like.
While 2028 remains years away, names already circulating include Ocasio-Cortez, California Rep. Ro Khanna, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and others who could emerge as national contenders.
For now, there is no indication Carlson intends to run for office, and his name has not regularly appeared among likely presidential candidates but there’s still plenty of time for him to make a surprising move.
Nearly a week after a Manhattan jury found former President Trump guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records the dust has started to settle.
According to a recent YouGov poll, Republicans say that they are now okay with allowing convicted felons to be president a significant rise from a similar poll in April.
YouGov conducted its first poll on the political support of felons on May 31, following the conviction of former President Donald Trump, and the sharp rise is both equally stunning and not at all surprising.
The Political Polls account shared the details on social media:
A convicted felon should be allowed to run for president
Similarly, a focus group of undecided voters following former President Trump’s conviction last week revealed mixed reactions to the historic verdict
According to The New York Times, a transcription of the focus group features 11 swing voters, all of whom have previously supported Trump and President Biden or Hillary Clinton at least once during 2016, 2020 and 2024.
Undecided voters were asked to discuss the impact of Trump’s guilty verdict in his New York trial and how it will affect their likelihood to vote for him. Some respondents said they were still “torn” after the verdict. However, it wasn’t a decisive factor for many of them.
“Inflation, the economy, immigration and abortion were the things that they said would ultimately determine their votes,” the Times notes.
James, a 53-year-old from Iowa, commented, “They’ve been going after Trump since he was elected in 2016. Democracy is supposed to be about the will of the people. I don’t really think the majority of the people in this country wanted to see him prosecuted on these charges.”
When other participants expressed their hesitancy to vote for a convicted felon, Jonathan, a 37-year-old from Florida, interjected, “You have to remember why Trump is the choice of millions of people. Trump represents a shock to the system. His supporters don’t hold him to the same ethical standards. He’s the antihero, the Soprano, the ‘Breaking Bad,’ the guy who does bad things, who is a bad guy but does them on behalf of the people he represents.”
Frank, a 65-year-old from Arizona, replied, “The more I see Trump dealing with this, the less confident I am in him. A president’s got to be a step apart from just a good person. And I have a problem with his integrity and ethics. I’m swinging toward probably Biden. And I don’t like Biden. I don’t like him… got no ethics, either.”
Los Angeles city council president Nury Martinez was recently caught making disturbingly racist comments about a colleague’s son, who is Black. While Martinez ultimately decided to resign in wake of the scandal her behavior gives a telling look at Democrats, and their values.
Former Trump Administration White House lawyer, Ty Cobb said he thinks former President Trump’s “narcissism” will ultimately land him in jail.
“I don’t think his first or second violation of the gag order will find him sent to jail, but I think ultimately, his narcissism will get the best of him,” Cobb told CNN’s Erin Burnett on Monday. “And he will violate it until he finds out what the limits of Judge Chutkan’s patience are.”
Cobb served as a lawyer for the Trump administration from July 2017 until May 2018.
The former White House attorney also predicted the court will uphold Judge Tanya Chutkan’s limited gag order in the former president’s federal election interference case. On Monday, a three-judge panel considered Trump’s attempt to halt the gag order imposed in the case.
Burnett suggested that if Trump were to violate the gag order, he could spend a night or two in jail. Cobb said “that’s exactly right.”
The judges asked skeptical and aggressive questions of attorneys on both sides while they were deciding whether to put back in place the gag order, The Associated Press noted.
“The judges were frustrated with both sides a little today because of the vagaries of, you know, their interpretation of the order and the arguments that they were making,” Cobb said in response. “But in the end … I think this task boils down to using that, you know, scalpel skillfully to demonstrate what target or targeting actually means and … what areas of speech are actually being circumscribed by the need to avoid undermining the integrity of the judicial process.”
“I think that task is well within the capability of these judges and Judge Chutkan,” he added.
There’s a wealth of new polling data on the Democratic presidential nomination contest, with polls from The Wall Street Journal and Associated Press both finding that even Democratic voters are concerned that President Joe Biden is too old to run.
The AP/NORC poll of adults (not registered voters) found that 77 percent of respondents believed Biden was too old to serve another term.
And for the hardened Team Blue partisans who shout “ageism!” at such findings…69 percent of self-identified Democrats said Biden’s age is a big issue (among Republicans, it was a whopping 89 percent – which shouldn’t come as a surprise).
But this must be a fluke, an outlier, and a one-off. Surely, the age issue can’t be that big a deal for Mr. Biden. Except The Wall Street Journal poll confirmed it is.
The Journal asked a split question – one if voters think Biden’s mental fitness is sufficient for the job, the other specifically on whether he is “too old.”
On the mental ability, 60 percent questioned Biden’s mental ability. On age, a total of 73 percent said he is “too old.”
What are the comparable numbers for former President Donald Trump?
A 49-46 split says Trump isn’t mentally up for the job. On age, another spilt, with 47 percent saying he’s too old and 45 saying he isn’t.
As always with polls, the numbers are snapshots in time and subject to change.
What these data points do, though, is reinforce narratives that have long been whispered in Democratic circles: Biden’s time has passed, and he would be wise to bow out and allow someone else to take the fight to what looks like Donald Trump in 2024.
But such whispers against an incumbent are very hard to translate into hard reality. What could bring them a tad bit closer to the fore are the other items in the Journal poll, particularly the sense that most people think the economy has hit a rough patch, and they are feeling the effects:
…58% of voters say the economy has gotten worse over the past two years, whereas only 28% say it has gotten better, and nearly three in four say inflation is headed in the wrong direction. Those views were echoed in the survey by large majorities of independents, a group that helped deliver Biden’s victory over Trump in the 2020 presidential race. Voters were almost evenly split on the direction of the job market.
It’s not a wipeout for Biden, but the data are hardly comforting to an incumbent who has staked his presidency on a massive reworking of the economy, with government intervention and support leading the way. Team Blue partisans will say it’s early, these things take time, etc., etc. And they aren’t entirely wrong.
But there’s also the iron law of politics to contend with: if you’re explaining, you’re losing. And until the data show voters are feeling better about their own particular economic situation, then Mr. Biden will need more than a slogan – “Bidenomics” – and promises of widespread prosperity to save his own political future.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk. It first appeared in American Liberty News.Republished with permission.
Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
A House Democrat is seeking to censure a MAGA Republican…
Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.) wants to censure Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) over a TV interview in which the Republican congresswoman criticized Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) over his display during President Trump’s congressional address.
Green notably heckled President Donald Trump multiple times during his first address of his second term to Congress last week until House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) ordered the Sergeant at Arms to escort Green from the chamber.
🚨 MORE should happen to Rep. Al Green than just being censured by the House
He must be REMOVED from the Homeland Security and Financial Services Committees
He clearly can’t control himself, and Americans can’t trust him to be on these important committees.
On Monday, Rep. Houlahan submitted a resolution calling to censure Boebert “for her recent disparaging and derogatory comments” about Green.
During a March 7 interview with Real America’s Voice News, Boebert said, “Al Green was given multiple opportunities to stand down, to sit down, to behave, to show decorum.”
“For him to go and shake his pimp cane at President Trump was absolutely abhorrent,” Boebert added.
The resolution said those words uttered by Boebert “are disparaging, derogatory, and racist toward another colleague, and are a breach of proper conduct and decorum of the U.S. House of Representatives.”
It calls for Boebert to be censured, “forthwith present herself in the well of the House of Representatives for the pronouncement of censure,” and that Boebert “be censured with the public reading of this resolution by the Speaker.”
In a statement, Houlahan said, “After my discussion on the House floor last week when Speaker Johnson told me he’d have to censure half the members if he actually enforced the rules of the Congress, I decided to help, and tonight introduced a resolution to censure Representative Boebert for her racist and derogatory statements about Representative Al Green.”
The lower chamber of Congress voted to censure Green the next day, and Johnson condemned how the Democrat “chose to deliberately violate House rules in a manner that we think is probably unprecedented in history.”
Special counsel Jack Smith filed a superseding indictment in his case indicting former President Trump for his actions seeking to subvert the 2020 election
The superseding indictment is an effort by the special counsel to respond to a ruling earlier this summer by the Supreme Court, which held that Trump and other former executives retain broad immunity for core actions they took as president and are presumptively immune for other actions taken while in office.
While the indictment retains the original charges – a sign of Smith’s confidence in the evidence underpinning the case – it makes significant cuts in an effort “to respect and implement the Supreme Court’s holdings.”
The filing removes former Justice Department attorney Jeffrey Clark as an unnamed, unindicted co-conspirator in the case, a reflection of specific instructions from the Supreme Court that said Trump’s conversations with Justice Department officials were protected from prosecution.
The superseding indictment is 10 pages shorter than the original, cutting lengthy examples from the original “speaking indictment” that walked through the evidence against Trump and his plots to remain in power.
But the new filing takes pains to distinguish various elements of Trump’s efforts to unwind the election as actions taken purely in a private capacity – and thus conduct that can be prosecuted.
Trump on his social media site called it “an effort to resurrect a ‘dead’ Witch Hunt” and move by Smith to “save face.”
“Deranged Jack Smith, has brought a ridiculous new Indictment against me, which has all the problems of the old Indictment, and should be dismissed IMMEDIATELY,” Trump wrote.
The Tuesday filing comes after Smith presented the case against the former president to a second grand jury, which had not previously heard the matter. It likewise concluded charges were warranted against the president.
