Category: Appointments and Removal

Posted on

Amarica’s Constitutional Crisis: A Kinda Intellectual History of the Office/Officer Controversy

[I would have said “pseudo-intellectual” but I remembered what Art Buchwald said about offending them.]

Anyway, on a recent Lawfare Podcast (at 1:23:02) a listener asked this question about the Colorado district court’s ruling (now reversed on appeal) on section 3: “How is the Colorado judge’s ruling on Trump’s disqualification based on a plausible reading of the 14th amendment and any existing precedents? What is the reasoning behind the interpretation?”

I will address this question as I interpret it, which I reformulate as follows:

Where does the idea that the president is not an “officer of the United States” and/or does not hold an “office under the United States” come from? Are there any historical or legal precedents for this idea or did Judge Wallace just conjure it out of thin air?

I begin by repeating a statement I made almost 7 years ago: “To my knowledge, prior to Professor Tillman’s raising the issue in 2009 or so, no one had ever expressly claimed or directly implied the president was excluded [from the Foreign Emoluments Clause]. No president, no member of Congress, no executive branch lawyer, no constitutional scholar. No one.” The same is true of the Incompatibility and Disqualification Clauses which, like the Foreign Emoluments Clause, apply only to “offices under the United States.”

In response, Professor Tillman cited me to examples in which President Washington received gifts that arguably would have violated the Foreign Emoluments Clause if it applied and suggested that this was the equivalent of Washington “implying” that the clause was inapplicable. (See Tillman’s comment of Mar. 17, 2017). However, there are many reasons why Washington might have thought, correctly or incorrectly, that the clause was inapplicable and other possibilities as well (he might not have thought about it at all or he might have decided that for some reason he could not comply with the letter of the clause). Regardless, this is hardly the equivalent of a public assertion that the clause was inapplicable because the president does not hold an “office under the United States.”

As I will discuss in my next post, there is slightly more of a historical pedigree to the argument that the president and vice president are not “officers of the United States” within the technical usage of Article II, an argument that also has a basis in the actual text of that article. But that argument has only minor implications for the presidency and vice presidency (it is more consequential with regard to members of Congress). Until Professor Tilllman first started writing about this issue (around 2008 or so), no one had seriously attempted to suggest that the president and vice president were not “officers of the United States” for general purposes, much less that they were exempt from constitutional provisions applying to “offices under the United States.”

There was, however, one mention of this “issue” (if that is the right word) prior to 2008. Specifically, it appears in an article entitled “Is the Presidential Succession Law Constitutional?,” 48 Stan. L. Rev. 113 (1995-96) by Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar. (For those who do not know, the Amar brothers are highly regarded legal academics and Professor Akhil Amar, in particular, is one of the most influential constitutional scholars of his time.) The thrust of the article is that it is unconstitutional to put congressional officers, such as the speaker of the House and the president pro tem of the Senate, in the line of presidential succession. One of the points the Amars make is that if a congressional officer were to become acting president, resignation from Congress would be required to avoid “a patent violation of the Incompatibility Clause rule that no sitting Senator or Representative may hold executive or judicial office.” Id. at 118-19. In a footnote, they make the following observation:

A quibbler might try to argue that the President does not, strictly speaking, “hold[ ] . . . Office under the United States,” and is instead a sui generis figure. But Article II provides that the President shall “hold his Office” for a four-year term, . . . prescribes an oath for “the Office of the President of the United States,” . . . and further provides that the President shall be removed from Office on Impeachment . . . and Conviction.” More importantly, the anti-Walpolian spirit underlying the Incompatibility Clause would have barred, for example, President George Washington from simultaneously serving as a Virginia Senator.

Id. at 119 n.34 (citations omitted) (emphasis in original).

Continue reading “Amarica’s Constitutional Crisis: A Kinda Intellectual History of the Office/Officer Controversy”

Posted on

Judge Wallace, Professor Lash, and the Unambiguous Language of Section Three

Note: the discussion of section 3’s legislative history in this post relies entirely on Professor Lash’s article. Which is to say that I appreciate his work on this subject, even if I strongly disagree with many of his interpretations. 

Let’s now turn to one of the two questions Judge Wallace resolved regarding the application of section 3 of the 14th amendment to the presidency: is the presidency an office which an “insurrectionist” (which we will use as a shorthand for someone who has violated his oath in the manner specified by section 3) is barred from holding? As you will recall, the text of section 3 provides:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

(emphasis added). The italicized words described the banned offices or positions (hereinafter “banned places”) which an insurrectionist may not hold, and you will notice that the presidency is not expressly mentioned, while both members of Congress and the comparatively trivial positions of presidential electors are.

Judge Wallace did not rely on the proposition, advanced by Professors Tillman and Blackman and much discussed on this blog, that the presidency is not an “office . . . under the United States.” Indeed, Tillman and Blackman themselves do not make this claim with respect to section 3 because, they say, there is a possibility of “linguistic drift” between the drafting and ratification of the original Constitution and the enactment of the 14th amendment. See Josh Blackman & Seth Barrett Tillman,Is the President an “Officer of the United States” for Purposes of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment?, 15 N.Y.U.J. L. & Liberty 1, 25 (2021); see also id. at 54 (describing the issue of whether the phrase “office of the United States” in section 3 included the presidency as “contestable”).

Instead, the court seemed to accept that the presidency might literally be covered by the “catchall phrase” of “any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State,” but it explained that “[t]o lump the Presidency in with any other civil or military office is odd indeed and very troubling to the Court because . . . Section Three explicitly lists all federal elected positions except the President and the Vice President.” Anderson v. Griswold, Case No. 2023CV32577, 2023 WL 8006216, slip op. at 96 (Dist. Ct., City and County of Denver, Colo., Nov. 27, 2023). It also placed weight on the fact that an earlier version of section 3 had explicitly covered the offices of president and vice president, noting that this “certainly suggests that the drafters intended to omit the office of the Presidency from the offices to be disqualified.” Id. at 97.

The court’s analysis, to put it charitably, is rather cursory. It does not discuss the meaning of “office under the United States” or the fact that this phrase and close variants appear multiple times in the original Constitution. It does not consider the understanding of the phrase at the time the 14th amendment was drafted and ratified, or how that understanding would have been influenced by official practice and interpretation over the eight decades prior to the ratification of the 14thamendment. It also fails to ask why the framers of the 14th amendment chose to enumerate senators, representatives, and presidential electors, while covering every other federal and state officeholder, from the chief justice of the Supreme Court to cabinet officers to governors and other elected state officers, in a “catchall phrase.”

The weight the court places on the fact that an early draft of section 3 explicitly lists the presidency and vice presidency also appears to be misplaced. A reader of the court’s opinion would get the impression that a proposed amendment was introduced with those offices expressly included and then that proposal was modified to remove them. The actual drafting history of section 3 was more complex.

Continue reading “Judge Wallace, Professor Lash, and the Unambiguous Language of Section Three”

Posted on

Judge Wallace and the Democracy Canon

Another preliminary matter regarding Judge Wallace’s opinion holding that former President Donald Trump was not disqualified under section 3 of the 14th amendment. In finding that the presidency is neither a disqualification-triggering nor a banned office within the meaning of that provision, the judge explained that “part of the Court’s decision is its reluctance to embrace an interpretation which would disqualify a presidential candidate without a clear, unmistakable indication that such is the intent of Section Three.” Order at 101, ¶ 314. Here, the court is essentially applying a “democracy canon” along the lines suggested by Professors Tillman and Blackman (although it does not cite them). See Josh Blackman & Seth Barrett Tillman, Sweeping and Forcing the President into Section 3, 28 Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. 105 & n. 306 (forthcoming 2024) (citing Richard L. Hasen, The Democracy Canon, 62 Stan. L. Rev. 69 (2009)).

Now the “democracy canon” is not one of the more well-established canons of construction, and I really have no idea whether it would apply here or if it exists at all. For purposes of discussion, however, I am happy to assume that there is a “democracy canon” that calls for ambiguous constitutional and statutory provisions to be construed, if possible, in favor of voter enfranchisement and empowerment. And if that is the case, and if the phrase “any office, civil or military, under the United States” in section 3 was ambiguous with respect to the presidency (it isn’t, but we will get to that in a future post), then the democracy canon could reasonably be applied to argue for a narrow construction of the phrase. In other words, if it was unclear whether the presidency was a banned office under section 3, the democracy canon would argue in favor of excluding the presidency so as not to deprive voters (well, presidential electors, really) of their ability to select the candidate of their choice for that position. Perhaps (the argument would go) the framers of the 14th amendment thought that the right of voters to select a president of their choice was so important that they should be able to vote for an insurrectionist if that is what they wanted.

Applying this canon to the question of disqualification-triggering offices, however, makes absolutely no sense. The effect here would be to preserve the ability of voters to select an insurrectionist for the presidency or any other office so long as the only oath he had violated was that of president (or vice president). But if this candidate had taken any other oath as a federal or state legislator or officeholder, he would still be disqualified. This would be an entirely arbitrary distinction that would apply to only one person in history, Donald J. Trump. The “democracy canon,” if it exists, does not support this result.

Posted on

Yoo and Malcolm on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment

Yesterday I listened the Federal Society webcast featuring Professor John Yoo and John Malcolm of the Heritage Foundation discussing legal and constitutional issues of presidential power. Part of the discussion focused on section 3 of the 14thamendment and whether that provision is applicable to former president Donald Trump. Yoo expressed a great deal of skepticism that section 3 applies to the presidency at all (and Malcolm agreed, though somewhat less definitively). Yoo pointed to the language of section 3 which (you may recall) says:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

(emphasis added).

Professor Yoo maintained that the fact the president and vice president are not expressly mentioned in either the list of “banned” or of “disqualification triggering” offices/positions is strong evidence that those offices are not covered by section 3. He particularly noted that because section 3 explicitly mentions presidential electors the framers of the 14th amendment must have made a conscious decision not to include the presidency and vice presidency.

With all due respect, this makes sense only if you haven’t thought about this issue more than a moment or two. To begin with, if the framers of the 14th amendment wished to exclude the presidency and vice presidency, they must have had a reason for doing so. I have not heard anyone suggest a plausible reason (or an implausible one, for that matter) why the president and vice president would be excluded, while presidential electors and other relatively insignificant positions would be included. See Saikrishna Bangladore Prakash, Why the Incompatibility Clause Applies to the Office of the President, 4 Duke J. L. & Pub. Pol’y 35, 43 (2009) (noting that reading section 3 “to require a congressional waiver for former confederates serving as postmasters or corporals but not to require such a waiver when a turncoat wished to serve as President would be rather strange”).

Continue reading “Yoo and Malcolm on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment”

Posted on

Steve Calabresi is Deeply Confused

Let me begin by saying that I do not know Professor Calabresi and have nothing against him as a person or a legal scholar. Moreover, the title of this blog post is not meant to suggest that his legal conclusion in the matter we are about to discuss is obviously wrong. I think it is probably wrong, but I do not think it is frivolous or entirely implausible. What I find confused, and frankly a bit unsettling, is the reasoning process that has led Calabresi to this conclusion.

Starting our story at the end, as it were, on September 16, 2023, Professor Calabresi wrote a blog post concluding that because Donald Trump was not and had not been “an officer of the United States” within the meaning of section 3 of the 14th amendment, he cannot be disqualified from future office under that provision. Calabresi favorably notes a recent article by Professors Seth Barrett Tillman and Josh Blackman which addresses this point, although he does not indicate whether his own view on this particular issue was influenced by their work.

As Calabresi acknowledges, slightly more than a month earlier, on August 10, he had written a blog post flatly stating that Trump falls within section 3’s ban on officeholding and therefore “is disqualified from being on any primary or general election ballots next year.” Calabresi says that he has changed his mind because of the “officer of the United States” issue, and he also suggests that he is less certain about whether the events of January 6 constitute an “insurrection” at all (I also have some doubts on the latter point, but that is not the subject of today’s post).

As you may recall from my last post, section 3 presents two issues with respect to the presidency in particular: (1) whether the president is an “officer of the United States” and therefore holds a disqualification-triggering office; and (2) whether the presidency is an “office under the United States” and therefore is an office which a disqualified official is banned from holding. Although Calabresi did not directly address either of these issues in his August 10 post, he implicitly answered both questions in the affirmative. Now, however, he has changed his mind, but only (it appears) as to the first issue. Presumably Calabresi still believes that the presidency is an “office under the United States” for purposes of section 3 (and, as we shall see, for purposes of other constitutional provisions).

Calabresi acknowledges in his September 16 post that he once believed the president is an officer of the United States. He refers to a 1995 article in which he said the “best reading” is that the president and vice president are “officers of the United States” as that term is used in the Appointments and Commissions Clauses of Article II. Steven G. Calabresi, The Political Question of Presidential Succession, 48 Stanford L. Rev. 155, 159 n.24 (1995). One problem with this reading is that the Commissions Clause provides the president “shall Commission all the Officers of the United States” and in historical practice neither the president nor vice president have received commissions, but Calabresi explained that this could “be deemed an oversight.” Id.

 According to Calabresi, his decades of academic work on the presidency have convinced him that this opinion of his “foolish youth” (as he puts it) was wrong and that “the words ‘officer of the United States’ are a legal term of art, which does not apply to the President.” Calabresi does not say when he reached this conclusion, but it is worth noting (as he does not) that he still held his original opinion at least as of 2008. See Seth Barrett Tillman & Steven G. Calabresi, The Great Divorce: The Current Understanding of Separation of Powers and the Original Meaning of the Incompatibility Clause, 157 U. Pa. L. Rev. PENNumbra 134 (2008).

In The Great Divorce (don’t ask me why it is called that) Tillman and Calabresi debate whether the Incompatibility Clause applies to the president. As readers of this blog are well aware, the Incompatibility Clause provides that “no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.” According to Tillman, the presidency is not an “office under the United States” and therefore there is no constitutional prohibition against a person serving as president and a member of Congress at the same time. In the debate with Calabresi much of Tillman’s argument was premised on the proposition that the president is not an officer of the United States within the meaning of Article II because the usage of the term in Article II shows it applies only to appointed, not elected, officials. See The Great Divorce, 157 U. Pa. L. Rev. PENNumbra at 137-38 (discussing the Impeachment and Commissions Clauses). If this is so and the terms “officer of the United States” and “office under the United States” should be read coextensively, Tilllman argues, it follows that the Incompatibility Clause does not prohibit joint congressional-presidential officeholding. Id.

 Calabresi’s response to this argument may best be described as bemused incredulity. See id. at 141 (“Seth Barrett Tillman has made an ingenious argument for an utterly implausible proposition.”). Calabresi responds to Tillman with the following points: (1) the presidency is clearly an office, as the Constitution explicitly states on multiple occasions, and every indicia of original public meaning supports the conclusion that it is an “office under the United States” and that the president is an “officer of the United States;” (2) the terms “office under the United States” and “officer of the United States” are not legal terms of art with a specialized meaning different from their ordinary meaning; (3) the usage of “office” and “officer” in legal discourse prior to the adoption of the Constitution was inconsistent with Tillman’s theory because, for example, state governors, whether or not elected, held offices under the state and were officers of the state; (4) Tillman’s theory would lead to normatively implausible results under the Incompatibility Clause (i.e., allowing a sitting president to serve in Congress) as well as other clauses such as the Foreign Emoluments Clause; and (5) Tillman’s theory is inconsistent with uniform historical practice, as exemplified by the fact that no one “in 219 years held the presidency while serving as a member of Congress, and the two sitting senators elected to the presidency, Warren G. Harding and John F. Kennedy, both resigned their senate seats upon becoming President.” Id. at 142-44. (Note: not long afterward Barack Obama and Joe Biden also resigned their senate seats after being elected to the presidency and vice presidency).

With respect to Tillman’s argument specifically regarding Article II’s use of the term “officer of the United States,” Calabresi acknowledged this was a closer question. See id. at 144-45 (noting that the Commissions Clause provides “Tillman’s best argument); id. at 157 (conceding again that Tillman has a “valid point” about the Commissions Clause). Nonetheless, he adhered to the position he had taken in 1995 that the better reading of Article II is that the president and vice president are officers of the United States. In support of that position, Calabresi particularly stresses the language of the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I, which applies to powers vested “in the Government of the United States, or in any . . . Officer thereof.” Because the president has always been considered an “Officer” within the meaning of this provision, and because it was “highly implausible” that this language would have been interpreted differently than the nearly identical language of Article II, Calabresi argued that the president must be an “officer of the United States” for all purposes. Id. at 142; see also id. at 156 (“Tillman’s inability to differentiate the Necessary and Proper Clause is thus fatal to his thesis.”).

Finally, Calabresi notes that even if the president was not an “officer of the United States” for purposes of Article II, it would not necessarily follow that he does not hold an “office under the United States” for purposes of the Incompatibility Clause and other constitutional provisions because the latter phrase is arguably broader. Id.at 156-57.

At this point it is worth considering what Calabresi has and has not changed his mind about since 2008. It seems clear that he has not changed his view that the president holds an “office under the United States” as that term is used in various constitutional provisions, including section 3 of the 14th amendment. For example, Calabresi notes that he favored the impeachment and disqualification of Trump for the events of January 6. Presumably therefore he believes, contra Professors Tillman and Blackman, that such disqualification would prevent Trump from again ascending to the presidency because it is an “office under the United States” within the meaning of the Impeachment Clause.

Calabresi also still believes (I think) that there was no legal term of art prior to the adoption of the Constitution that excluded elected state officials in the executive branch from being officers of the state (or holding offices under the state). For example, an elected state governor would be an officer of that state within the meaning of the state’s constitution. Moreover, I assume that Calabresi still believes that elected governors and other elected state officials in the executive and judicial branches would qualify as “executive and judicial Officers . . . of the several States” within the meaning of the Oaths Clause in Article VI of the Constitution.

Calabresi has changed his mind on whether the term “officer of the United States” in Article II is best read to apply to the president and vice president. This is perfectly reasonable in my estimation. As Calabresi acknowledged in his prior writings, this is a close question and reasonable arguments can be made on either side. I have previously expressed the view that the president and vice president probably should not be considered “officers of the United States” as that term is used in Article II and so I can hardly criticize Calabresi for coming around to the same position. (Exactly why he changed his mind on this, seeing as the arguments today are no different than they were in 1995 and 2008, though, is a little puzzling).

This situation is different, however, regarding the interpretation of “officer of the United States” outside of Article II. In 2008 Calabresi said that “when the Oath Clause of Article VI requires that all federal and state executive and judicial officers takes oaths to uphold the Constitution the Clause is clearly referring to the President, the Vice President and to state governors as well as to all federal and state judges.” The Great Divorce, 157 U. Pa. L. Rev. PENNumbra at 142-43 (emphasis added). Thus, Calabresi believed the president and vice president were “executive . . . Officers . . . of the United States” within the meaning of Article VI. Presumably he must have changed his mind on this because otherwise it would make no sense for him to claim that “officer of the United States” is a term of art that excludes the president and vice president for all constitutional purposes, but his September 16 post does not mention the Oath Clause or offer any explanation for why he no longer has the opinion he expressed so emphatically in 2008.

On the other hand, I find it difficult to believe that Calabresi has changed his mind about the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I, when he claimed in 2008 that “[e]veryone for 219 years has thought that the Necessary and Proper Clause uses these words [Officer of the Government of the United States] to refer to the President.” Id. at 142. Furthermore, he stressed that “Congress has enacted lots of legislation over two centuries predicated on the idea that it can carry into execution the President’s executive power because he is an ‘officer’ of the ‘Government of the United States.’” Id. at 156. Surely if Calabresi had changed his mind on such an important issue, he would have at least mentioned it in his blog post.

But if Calabresi has not changed his mind regarding the Necessary and Proper Clause (and the Oath Clause), it is hard to see how he could maintain that “officer of the United States” is a term of art that must be read to exclude the president (and vice president) for all purposes in the original Constitution, much less in an amendment that was enacted many decades later. Calabresi claims that the phrase “officer of the United States” must “presumptively” mean the same thing in section 3 as it does in Article II, but this cannot be right if it means something different in Articles I and VI.

Moreover, apart from the internal consistency of Calabresi’s views on these issues, I have questions regarding the interpretive methodology that leads him to declare so confidently that the Constitution establishes “officer of the United States” as a legal term of art that excludes the president and vice president for purposes of section 3, when Calabresi himself admits that the drafters of section 3 themselves did not understand this to be the meaning of the term. Calabresi concedes that “[t]he Senate in debating Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was of the view that the president is an officer of the United States.” If the Senate did not understand this “term of art,” is Calabresi claiming that the House, the legislatures that ratified the 14th amendment or the public at large did so? I don’t think he is making this claim, and if so he certainly has not produced evidence to substantiate it.

A far more conventional analysis, it seems to me, would be to say that while the ordinary meaning of “officer of the United States” would seem include the president and vice president, Article II’s usage of that term makes it ambiguous as applied to these officeholders. One would then ask what reasons support a narrower or broader construction of the term as used in section 3. For example, would excluding the president and vice president from the list of officeholders who are disqualified from public office if they engage in insurrection or rebellion be a normatively plausible result? Would someone reading the text of section 3 when the 14thamendment was proposed by Congress have understood this exclusion given that the list of disqualification-triggering offices covered all other significant (and many insignificant) federal and state offices? The answers to these questions seem self-evident. If there are countervailing considerations that would support a narrower construction, I have not heard them.

Finally, it seems to me that all law professors or other self-appointed constitutional experts would be well-served by a dose of humility in commenting on section 3, given that there are obviously a host of novel and unsettled issues arising from its potential application to the events of January 6. Declaring confidently on one day that section 3 clearly disqualifies Trump from office and with equal confidence a few weeks later that it does not apply to Trump is a textbook example of what not to do.

Posted on

Does Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment Apply to State Elected Officials?

Less than a week after the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol, I wrote a brief blog post on whether section 3 of the 14th amendment applied to the presidency. (Don’t feel bad if you forgot this- so did I). The relevant text of section 3 is set forth below:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

This language describes two categories or groups of offices or positions. One is the category of previously held offices/positions which will trigger section 3’s disqualification if the official in question, after taking the oath, commits insurrection, rebellion, etc. We will call this category, following the terminology used by Professors Baude and Paulsen, the “disqualification-triggering” offices or positions.

The second category (second in time, although it appears first in the text of section 3) consists of those offices/positions that a previously disqualified official is prohibited from holding in the future. We will call these, following Professor Hemel, the “banned” offices or positions.

My prior post briefly addressed two questions: (1) whether the president is an “officer of the United States” under section 3 and therefore holds a disqualification-triggering office; and (2) whether the presidency is an “office under the United States” and therefore qualifies as a banned office. I predicted, based on a long history of work by Professor Tillman, joined more recently by Professor Blackman, that Tillman and Blackman would answer both these questions in the negative. I also noted, based on my own long history of responding to (mostly) Tillman’s work, that these answers would be wrong, although I allowed that the first question was “somewhat closer” than the second.

As it turns out, my prediction was not entirely correct. Tillman and Blackman do indeed claim that the president is not an officer of the United States and therefore does not hold a disqualification-triggering office, but they expressly decline to take a position on whether the presidency is an “office under the United States” for purposes of section 3. This constitutes progress, I guess, and I congratulate them for not extending what I consider to be grievous error. In the same spirit, I will somewhat soften my position on the first question. Although I am still inclined to think the president is an officer of the United States for purposes of section 3, I think it is fair to treat it as an open question, which I hope to explore further in future posts.

Today, however, I want to address a different set of issues, which have not been discussed in depth by any of the principal commentators on section 3 (at least to my knowledge). Does section 3 apply to state elected officials/positions and, if so, which ones? This question is not only of some current interest in its own right, but the answer has some important implications for the Tillman/Blackman theory that underlies the overall controversy.

Continue reading “Does Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment Apply to State Elected Officials?”

Posted on

Does Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment Apply to the Presidency?

It will come as no surprise to readers of this blog that Professors Tillman and Blackman have written a controversial piece about the current troubles in which, among other things, they reiterate their view that the Constitution’s Disqualification Clause does not bar an impeached, removed and disqualified official from the presidency because that office does not constitute an “Office of honor, Trust or Profit” within the meaning of Article I, § 3, cl. 7. See Blackman & Tillman, Can President Trump be Impeached and Removed on Grounds of Incitement (Jan. 8, 2021) (“The Senate has no power to disqualify a defendant from holding elected federal positions, such as the presidency.”) (emphasis in original).

I will not bore you by restating the reasons why I think this view is very, very wrong. You can read them ad nauseam by following the links in my most recent post on the subject.

The same issue arises, however, in regard to another constitutional provision which, as far as I recall, I have not addressed before. Specifically, section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment (an obscure provision which is enjoying its moment in the sun) provides:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial office of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

(emphasis added).

I should state at the outset that I am extremely skeptical that President Trump’s behavior, as atrocious and impeachable as it may be, constitutes “insurrection or rebellion” or other conduct covered by this provision. Assuming for the sake of argument that it is, however, the italicized language raises two questions. First, is the president “an officer of the United States” subject to the bar of section 3 if he engages in the proscribed conduct? Second, is the presidency an “office, civil or military, under the United States” which a covered officer is barred from holding?

I assume that Tillman and Blackman would say no to both questions, although I am not entirely sure. Their argument is that the meaning of “officer of the United States” and office “under the United States” as used in the original Constitution applies only to appointed, not elected, offices and therefore excludes the presidency (and vice presidency). Whether they would say that this meaning was understood by anyone as of the time the Fourteenth Amendment was drafted is less clear. As I have pointed out, the view they ascribe (based on highly ambiguous historical practice) to a few members of the founding generation seems to have vanished without a trace by 1834 at the very latest.

It is interesting nonetheless that the only example I have found anyone actually expressing the Tillman/Blackman view (prior to Professor Tillman himself) comes in the debate over section 3 in the Senate on June 13, 1866. During the debate over the draft constitutional language, the following colloquy occurred:

Mr. Johnson. But this amendment does not go far enough. I suppose the framers of the amendment thought it was necessary to provide for such an exigency. I do not see but that any one of these gentlemen may be elected President or Vice President of the United States, and why did you omit to exclude them? I do not understand them to be excluded from the privilege of holding the two highest offices in the gift of the nation. No man is to be a Senator or Representative or an elector for President or Vice President–

39 Cong. Globe 2899 (1866) (emphasis added).

Here we have a U.S. senator suggesting that the disability imposed by section 3 would not exclude anyone from the “privilege of holding the two highest offices” in the land, even though it on its face applies to “any office, civil or military, under the United States.” Admittedly, its just one man’s opinion, but to my knowledge it is closer than anyone else (pre-Tillman) has ever come to expressly endorsing the Tillman/Blackman view of “office under the United States.”

Naturally a fierce debate ensued:

Mr. Morrill. Let me call the Senator’s attention to the words “or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States.”

Mr. Johnson. Perhaps I am wrong as to the exclusion from the Presidency; no doubt I am; but I was misled by noticing the specific exclusion in the case of Senators and Representatives.

39 Cong. Globe 2899 (1866).

Ok, “oops, I was wrong” might not qualify as a fierce debate, but it is as much of a debate as you will find anywhere on this issue between 1787 and 2008 or so. No doubt if the 39th Congress had any doubt that the language flagged by Senator Johnson was ambiguous, it would have been clarified. After all, there is no chance that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment intended to prevent former rebels from serving as presidential electors but not as the president. Of course, the same can be said of the framers of the Constitution. Clearly it could not have been intended that a president be impeached, removed from office, and disqualified from serving in any federal office other than the presidency. Similarly, it could not have been intended that presidents be able to receive foreign emoluments or titles of nobility.

The question of whether the president or vice-president is an “officer of the United States” within the meaning of section 3 is somewhat closer. As was pointed out during the same Senate debate, section 3’s language regarding the individuals whose violation of oath triggers the disability tracks the Constitution’s Oath Clause in Article VI, which requires that “all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.”

There is a plausible structural argument that the term “officer of the United States” as used in Article II refers to individuals appointed and commissioned by the president, which would exclude the vice president and the president himself. Whether or not this is correct, it does not follow that the phrase used elsewhere in the Constitution is necessarily so limited. For example, while it is true that the president’s oath is separately provided for in Article II, the vice president’s is not; therefore, interpreting Article VI’s reference to “executive . . . Officers . . . of the United States” as excluding the president and vice president would mean the nowhere in the Constitution is the vice president’s oath provided for, a result that Tillman finds a good deal more plausible that do I. And while Tillman’s view of the Oath Clause has some support from a 1974 OLC memorandum written (or at least signed) by Assistant Attorney General Antonin Scalia, as I explain here that memo’s reasoning leaves much to be desired.

It also seems unlikely that the framers of section 3 would have deliberately omitted the president and vice president from the list of officials prohibited from engaging in insurrection and rebellion, although this conclusion seems more reasonable if one assumes their focus was entirely on the immediate past rebellion rather than potential future ones. In short, the argument that the president is not an “officer of the United States” within the meaning of section 3 seems to me to be quite weak, but not as weak as the claim that he holds no “office under the United States” under section 3 or the Disqualification Clause.

Posted on

The Berman Firing, Congressional Oversight, and (Lack of) Presidential Accountability for the Exercise of the Removal Power

I don’t envy Andrew McCarthy, the National Review contributing editor who writes about legal affairs. McCarthy is a smart and experienced lawyer who clearly thinks of himself as intellectually honest. But he also seems to conceive his job as explaining the constitutional operation of our government while minimizing references to the president’s massive unfitness for office. This makes intellectual honesty challenging. It’s a bit like submitting a detailed report on the crash of a passenger jet and only casually mentioning that the pilot was a kangaroo.

A case in point is McCarthy’s take on the dismissal of Geoffrey Berman, the interim U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York (USA-SDNY). In case you had not heard, late Friday, June 19, the Justice Department issued a press release with three announcements by Attorney General Bill Barr: (1) President Trump “intends to nominate” Jay Clayton (currently the SEC chairman) as the permanent USA-SDNY; (2) Trump “has appointed” Craig Carpenito (currently the interim U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey) to be the “acting” USA-SDNY effective July 3; and (3) Berman would “stepping down” from his position as the interim USA-SDNY.

Berman responded immediately by denying that he was stepping down and implying that he needed to stay on to protect the integrity of the SDNY’s investigations (which include politically sensitive investigations that could implicate the president’s personal or political interests). The next day, June 20, Barr wrote to Berman advising him that “[b]ecause you have declared that you have no intention of resigning, I have asked the President to remove you as of today, and he has done so.”

Noticeably absent from Barr’s letter was any claim that the president had asked for Berman’s resignation or had been involved at all prior to that day. Also unmentioned was any reference to the president’s alleged “appointment” of Carpenito that DOJ had announced the day before. Instead, Barr stated that by “operation of law” Berman’s deputy, Audrey Strauss, would become acting USA-SDNY, noting that “I anticipate that she will serve in that capacity until a permanent successor is in place.” The assurance regarding Strauss’s tenure was reportedly given as a concession for Berman to agree to leave quietly.

To add to the chaos, when asked about Berman’s departure, Trump told the press that he was “not involved.” The White House later “clarified” this statement to acknowledge that Trump had “signed off” on Barr’s recommendation that Berman be terminated. Whether this sign off occurred only after Berman refused to leave is unclear. There has been no other official or unofficial indication that Trump was involved in either Berman’s departure or the botched attempt to appoint Carpenito.

In two columns (June 20 and June 23), McCarthy defends the Trump administration against critics who conceive Berman’s firing to be part of an effort by the president and the attorney general to obstruct justice by derailing particular investigations that threaten Trump in some way. About this he is probably right, but he glosses over the incompetence, dysfunction and lack of accountability that have been so typical of this administration’s “personnel” actions. Continue reading “The Berman Firing, Congressional Oversight, and (Lack of) Presidential Accountability for the Exercise of the Removal Power”

Posted on

Scalia, Trump, Tillman and the Foreign Emoluments Clause

Apropos of the debate whether the president holds “any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States]” within the meaning of the Foreign Emoluments Clause (art. I, § 9, cl. 8), reference has been made to a December 1974 memorandum written by Antonin Scalia, then the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel. See Memorandum to the Honorable Kenneth A. Lazarus, Assoc. Counsel to the President, re: “Applicability of 3 C.F.R. Part 100 to the President and Vice President” (Dec. 19. 1974). Professors Seth Barrett Tillman and Josh Blackman have suggested that this memorandum is relevant to the debate, presumably in providing support for Tillman’s position that the president is not covered by the Foreign Emoluments Clause. Indeed, Tillman here cites the 1974 memorandum as contrary authority to a subsequent OLC opinion that expressly acknowledges that the Clause applies to the president.

For those unfamiliar with the background, Professor Tillman has long maintained that the president (and vice president) do not hold (1) “any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States” within the meaning of the Disqualification Clause (art. I, § 3, cl. 7); (2) “any Office under the United States” within the meaning of the Incompatibility Clause (art. I, § 6, cl. 2); (3) “an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States” within the meaning of the Elector Incompatibility Clause (art. II, § 1, cl. 2); and, of course, (4) “any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States]” within the meaning of the aforementioned Foreign Emoluments Clause.

It is fair to say that these claims were greeted with a large degree of skepticism by this blog. See, e.g., here (Disqualification Clause); here (Incompatibility Clause); and here (Foreign Emoluments Clause). At the time, however, the stakes were low with regard to a debate of primarily academic interest.

The stakes are higher now. The president-elect has received some criticism for refusing to divest himself of a large portfolio of international business interests. Among other things, this situation is said to create a high probability or virtual certainty (depending on whom you ask) that Mr. Trump will be in violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause once he assumes the presidency. This thesis, of course, assumes the Clause applies to the president, and therefore it becomes a matter of some importance to know whether there is anything to Professor Tillman’s position.

Continue reading “Scalia, Trump, Tillman and the Foreign Emoluments Clause”

Posted on

Not So Fast, Speaker Winfrey

Is it a “fact” that non-members of the House are constitutionally eligible to serve as Speaker? The keepers of congressional knowledge and precedent (i.e., the Parliamentarians, the House historian, and other recognized experts on this sort of thing) would tell you, with perhaps an unwarranted degree of confidence, that the answer to this question is “yes.”

The basis of this answer seems to be the following: (1) the Constitution says only that the “House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers,” but does not specify any qualifications for these positions; (2) it is well accepted that the House’s “other Officers” (e.g., Clerk, Sergeant at Arms and Chaplain) need not be, and indeed never are, members; (3) although the House has always elected a member as Speaker, an occasional vote for a non-member candidate has been cast without being ruled out of order; and (4) various congressional publications say in passing that a non-member could serve as Speaker. The last point, of course, is a somewhat circular reason as it merely reflects the written assertion by some of the congressional experts already noted.

Personally, I have not questioned this received wisdom, but I haven’t thought much about it either. Now, however, with the House speakership up for grabs, some people are discussing, with more or less seriousness, whether the House could look outside its membership for a candidate. Suggestions have included Newt Gingrich, Arthur Brooks and Oprah.

Some lawyers and scholars argue that allowing a non-member to be eligible for the speakership would violate separation of powers principles by, for example, raising the possibility that the President or Vice-President could simultaneously serve as Speaker.  Professor Schaub also argues that a non-member Speaker would conflict with the constitutional text, particularly the fact that “the Constitution vests its specified legislative powers in Congress, composed of a Senate and a House, each in turn composed of members, elected by the people.” Therefore, she argues, “[l]egislative powers cannot be lodged in the hands of a non-legislative person.”

These arguments are not without force, but it seems to me that they largely go to why the House should not, rather than cannot, elect a non-member as Speaker. Schaub may be right that “it simply never occurred to [the Framers] that someone would take it into his head to contend that the Speaker of the House could be an individual who was not a fellow legislator.” But Professor Tillman is right that the mere fact that the Framers and everyone else expected the Speaker to be a member is not enough to prove that there is a constitutional prohibition on electing a non-member to that position.

This is particularly true when you consider that the Constitution expressly leaves the choice of Speaker up to the House. The Framers may have very well assumed that the House would never consider a non-member as Speaker except in extraordinary circumstances; it doesn’t follow that they saw the necessity to preclude the House from choosing a non-member under any circumstances.

A strong argument against the constitutional eligibility of non-members would depend on showing that the meaning of the word “Speaker” as used in the Constitution was limited to members of a legislative body. As Professor Rappaport notes, it would be a necessary, but not sufficient, component of this argument to show that the speakers of the British House of Commons and state/colonial legislatures were invariably members of the body.

What about the semantic content of the word “speaker” at the time of the framing? Johnson’s Dictionary gives one meaning of “speaker” as “the prolocutor of the commons,” which is very helpful unless, like me, you have no idea what “prolocutor” means. Fortunately, it defines “prolocutor” as “the foreman; the speaker of a convocation.” And it defines “foreman” as “the first or chief person.” So one might argue that the “speaker” of a legislative body is the first or chief person of that body, and therefore necessarily a member (as the foreman of a jury is necessarily a member). Not a terrible argument, but hardly a slam dunk either.

In short, the question of whether a non-member can be Speaker remains an open constitutional question (the House never having had occasion to address it in a serious way) and the correct answer is less than obvious, at least to me.