Professor Seth Barrett Tillman Asks for 15 Minutes of Oral Argument Time in U.S. Supreme Court in Trump Ballot Access Case

Posted on by January 29, 2024

On January 29, Professor Seth Barrett Tillman asked the U.S. Supreme Court for 15 minutes of argument time in Trump v Anderson, the U.S. Supreme Court ballot access case. It is extremely rare for an amicus (other than the Solicitor General) to be allowed to participate in oral argument in the U.S. Supreme Court. Professor Tillman acknowledges this. But he says the briefs for both sides are failing to understand that there is a difference between “Office under the United States” and being an “Officer of the United States.” He has studied these phrases for a decade, and he feels this is an important issue and that he can help the court. Here is his filing.

Comments

Professor Seth Barrett Tillman Asks for 15 Minutes of Oral Argument Time in U.S. Supreme Court in Trump Ballot Access Case — 22 Comments

  2. Professor Seth Barrett Tillman amicus brief can be found here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/295290/20240109145107356_23-719%20Amicus%20Brief%20Professors%20Barrett%20and%20Tillman%20Final.pdf

    Since 2008, Tillman has consistently written that the phrase “Officer of the United States” does not encompass the presidency.

    In other words, Section 3 doesn’t apply to Trump in Tillman’s scholarly opinion nor is it self-executing (meaning that it can’t be used as a basis for disqualification on its own).

  4. ONLY ART 2 O/O–

    2-1-1 The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
    2-1-2 Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
    2-1-5 No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
    2-1-6 In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
    2-1-8 Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
    —
    PERHAPS THE PROF HAS AN IRISH TRANSLATION OF THE USA CONST ???

    HOW MANY ZILLION OFFICE(S)/OFFICER(S) MENTIONS IN THE 1776-1787 STATE CONSTS ???

    IE — COPIED INTO THE USA CONST ???

  9. 90 YEARS AGO- HITLER IS APPOINTED GERMANY PRIME MINISTER BY SENILE PREZ HINDENBURG

    THIRD REICH 1933-1945. CIRCA 80-100 MILLION DEAD.

    STATISM IN ACTION — FASCIST VERSION
    —
    PR
    APPV
    TOTSOP

  10. 91 YEARS

    ANY OLDE NAZIS STILL MARCHING AROUND FROM 30 JAN 1933 PARADES IN BERLIN — OTHER THAN TRUMP IN USA ???

  14. I’m sure that the Supremes are getting an earful already on this matter, from all directions. Even from their spouses.

  16. For a refreshing change, this is a professor with modicum of respect for the intelligence of laymen.

  19. It is a technicality and is unlikely to be the decisive issue for the SCOTUS. The issue is adequately addressed in Tillman’s amicus brief, and the briefs of other more substantive amicus briefs.

    How can Congress remove a disability if that disability is imposed by a civil district court in Colorado or an appointed bureaucrat in Maine? What was the legal standard? Preponderance of evidence? Divination? Was there a trial? Was there discovery?

    Congress has provided by statute for a method by which it may determined whether an individual has participated in an insurrection.

  20. Trump hasn’t even been charged with insurrection, much less convicted. The closest to an insurrection charge was the second impeachment, where he was acquitted

  21. @Wind,

    When the SCOTUS rules, they will state that they are not making a determination of whether an insurrection occurred on January 6, 2021; or whether Donald Trump, Joseph Biden, or anyone else participated in an insurrection. What they will say is that the Colorado district court and the Maine Secretary of State did not apply an objective standard.

    Whether a person is 35 or older is an objective standard. A person is 35 or older in all 50 States. They can’t be over 35 in Maine and under 35 in New Hampshire.

    Whether a person is a Natural Born Citizen (NBC) is an objective standard. A person can’t be a NBC in Alaska, but not a NBC in Florida.

    Whether a person has resided in the United State for the past 10 years is an objective standard. A person can not be a resident in Michigan but not resident in Texas.

    Whether a person is an insurrectionist should be an objective standard. If the 14th Amendment is self-executing it means that an insurrectionist is barred not only from serving as president, but can not serve as a member of any legislature or governor of any State. If Jefferson Davis had been elected governor of Mississippi in 1870 it would have had to be the federal government who enforced the 14th Amendment. So how can you have conflicting determinations of whether or not a person is or was an insurrectionist. Maine decides he is, and that he can’t run for President, or be the governor or in the Maine legislature; but Arizona determines that he was not an insurrectionist and thus can run for President or be the governor of Arizona, or be in the Arizona legislature? That is not what 14-3 says.

    In addition. the Tillman interpretation would mean that if Joe Biden does the same things in 2025, that Trump did in 2021, then Biden would be barred from office holding based on the oath he took when he was a Senator.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.