Luttig, 69, the unlikely hero of the resistance

[butters]

really interesting article

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...&cvid=ea1339e816cd4ee092f8d4ae5807346e&ei=207

“All that he has done beginning with January 6 has corrupted American democracy and corrupted American elections and laid waste to Americans’ faith and confidence in their democracy to the extent that today millions and millions and millions of Americans no longer have faith and confidence in their elections.

“He’s the presumptive nominee of the Republican party in 2024 and indeed many people believe that he will be the next president.”

Luttig intends to stop him from achieving that aim. In August he published an article along with Laurence Tribe (liberal constitutional scholar) in the Atlantic magazine: an article in the Atlantic magazine, and this week reopened an older legal movement as the Society for the Rule of Law, which is set to go head to head with the Federalist Society and strives to cleave to the older, ingrained and legal ideals shunned by the actions of the federalists.

Luttig elaborates by phone: “The former president is disqualified from holding the presidency again because he engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the constitution of the United States when he attempted to remain in power, notwithstanding that the American people had voted to confer the power of the presidency upon Joe Biden. That constituted a rebellion against the executive vesting clause of the constitution, which limits the term of the president to four years unless he is re-elected by the American people. I cannot even being to tell you how that is literally the most important two sentences in America today.”

he goes on to reason why the cases being brought against trump in order to keep him off the ballot are failing because they're arguing the wrong point: it's about rebellion against the Constitution not about proving trump was responsible for Jan 6th and rebelling against the USA itself.

“That’s why they have, unfortunately, focused their efforts on establishing or not that the former president was responsible for the riot on the Capitol. The riot on the Capitol is incidental to the question of whether he engaged in a rebellion against the constitution.”

Luttig naturally takes a lawyerly view: “The constitution tells us that it is not disqualification that is anti-democratic. Rather, it is the conduct that gives rise to disqualification that the constitution tells us is anti-democratic. America’s founding document does not allow for second guessing about the political fallout, he adds. “It is the constitution that requires us to decide whether he is disqualified, whatever the consequences of that disqualification might be.”

now, clearly, the public are deeply vested in proving his culpability (or innocence, for the magats) of those events, given their shocking, historic context, but the LEGAL arguments are how these things stand or fail.