Live Breaking News & Updates on Originalism

Stay informed with the latest breaking news from Originalism on our comprehensive webpage. Get up-to-the-minute updates on local events, politics, business, entertainment, and more. Our dedicated team of journalists delivers timely and reliable news, ensuring you're always in the know. Discover firsthand accounts, expert analysis, and exclusive interviews, all in one convenient destination. Don't miss a beat — visit our webpage for real-time breaking news in Originalism and stay connected to the pulse of your community

Morning Joe

justice department and the argument has come back around from trump's attorneys in this circular game saying, no, this should have been settled during impeachment. >> it's so ironic that the party that loves to lecture everyone about the originalism about the constitution and the text of the constitution, they have now arrived supporting a guy who has signed off on his lawyers saying in a court of the united states of america that if you have 35 votes in the senate, you can do anything you want. you can violate people's human rights, you can murder them, you can violate any law in america and you're good to go. and that is so fundamentally against the entire context of our constitution. which is checks and balances. criminal prosecution has nothing to do with a political process. it should never have anything to

Donald-trump , Argument , Impeachment , Saying , Game , Attorneys , Democrats , Everyone , Justice , Department , Originalism , John-souer

Inside With Jen Psaki

amendment itself was meant to address ongoing white supremacy. and there are many people who are willing to make that bargain to suggest that we can ignore that section of the constitution simply to make peace with trump supporters. and i think that would be a terrible step for this country. now, i think the supreme court has got lots of options to try and get around section three. but the reality is if they were using their own standards, history, text, intention, originalism, then they would be upholding the colorado supreme court's decision. >> the law. if you don't want to be to -- come to the law, you shouldn't be a part of an insurrection. i do want to ask, you sherrilyn, before i let you go. we have some breaking news, special counsel jack smith was a victim of a swatting call on christmas. there's been a trend of that of course. and it basically means -- maybe you're watching i'm not sure, someone made false emergency calls to prompt a large police presence at his home. this of course happened a lot,

People , Constitution , Section , Supporters , White-supremacist , Peace , Bargain , Country , Supreme-court , History , Reality , Intention

Inside With Jen Psaki

constitution, section of the constitution, directly meant to address who trump is. it was meant to address insurrection and the 14th amendment itself was meant to address ongoing white supremacy. and there are many people who are willing to make that bargain to suggest that we can ignore that section of the constitution simply to make peace with trump supporters. and i think that would be a terrible step for this country. now, i think the supreme court has got lots of options to try and get around section three. but the reality is if they were using their own standards, history, text, intention, originalism, then they would be upholding the colorado supreme court's decision. >> the law. if you don't want to be to -- come to the law, you shouldn't be a part of an insurrection. i do want to ask, you sherrilyn, before i let you go. we have some breaking news, special counsel jack smith was a victim of a swatting call on christmas. there's been a trend of that of course. and it basically means -- maybe you're watching i'm not sure, someone made false

Donald-trump , People , Insurrection , 14th-amendment , Constitution , Section , White-supremacist , Bargain , 14 , Country , Supreme-court , Options

The Mehdi Hasan Show

will the conservative justices making up the 6 to 3 majority, often citing originalism, or reading the constitution in line with what the framers originally intended as their guiding doctrine. will they drop originalism on this one case to help trump? a lot of conservative legal scholars have commentated, including judge michael luttig. they new york times david french, and also the two authors of the university of penn law debates, saying that section three is self executing of a criminal conviction. they all say that this is an open and shut case. of course, the supreme court is not guided only by the constitution, it is great guided by politics and partisanship. don't take my word for it, take the word of donald trump's own lawyer on fox this week. >> it should be a supreme court slammed, i have faith in them. people like kavanaugh, who the president fought for, who the president went through hell to get into place. she will step up.

Justices , Constitution , Case , Framers , Line , Originalism , Majority , Guiding-doctrine , 3 , One , 6 , Lot

The Mehdi Hasan Show

that plain language in history of section three? will the conservative justices making up the 6 to 3 majority, often citing originalism, or reading the constitution in line with what the framers originally intended as their guiding doctrine. will they drop originalism on this one case to help trump? a lot of conservative legal scholars have commentated, including judge michael luttig. they new york times david french, and also the two authors of the university of penn law debates, saying that section three is self executing of a criminal conviction. they all say that this is an open and shut case. of course, the supreme court is not guided only by the constitution, it is great guided by politics and partisanship. don't take my word for it, take the word of donald trump's own lawyer on fox this week. >> it should be a supreme court slammed, i have faith in them. people like kavanaugh, who the president fought for, who the president went through hell to get into place. she will step up.

Lot , Case , Section , Constitution , Justices , Framers , History , Line , New-york-times , Majority , Originalism , Language

Morning Joe

clash for the court between the conservative justices' commitment to textualism and originalism and the desire to find a pragmatic solution. conservative scholars like judge luttig argued powerfully the text of the constitution requires trump's exclusion from the ballot, and the 14th amendment is self-executing. in other words, there is no need for congress to pass enabling legislation before people can be disqualified. therefore, the justices who ordinarily care about text and history should disqualify him. on the other hand, as you suggested, they may be reluctant to have -- to kick him off the ballot and be concerned about the chaos that would result and that threat that president trump just made at the end of the clip you made. it is really sobering. for all those reasons, the justices might not intervene. another real dilemma for them is bush v gore. in bush v gore, they exalted pragmatic considerations like

Supreme-court-of-colorado , Justices , Luttig , Text , Scholars , Judge , Clash , Constitution-requires-trump , Commitment , Solution , Textualism , Originalism

American Voices With Alicia Menendez

those, senator from massachusetts that have been beaten nearly to death by a south carolina representative three days after he gave a speech talking about the importance of banning slavery. it's important the supreme court take this up, what they're concerned about then, and these members of the court care about originalism, they care about textualism, they should in fact then lean into this and understand that this applies for this moment with the former president, given he tried to provide aid and support for those people that were committing an insurrection. and certainly by the district court in colorado, they said that he participated in this and lead that effort and many people believe that to be the case. >> michelle goodwin, lots of brown covered, thank you for your expertise. it made for a rich and informative discussion. that's gonna do it for this hour, i'm charles coleman junior in fo alicia menendez, i want to thank the team at american voices, along with alicia for sitting in the seat.

Supreme-court , Speech , South-carolina , Senator , Banning-slavery , Death , Importance , Representative , Massachusetts , Three , One , President

All In With Chris Hayes

now we need to wait for congress to figure it all out and put a procedure in place that is more uniform nationwide. that would be a plausible decision, not one consistent with genuine textualism or originalism but one that might make sense to the broad middle of the court. at the same time they've got this very easy case about absolute presidential immunity or whether the fact that he was on trial for an impeachable offense and then acquitted by the senate, whether that somehow precludes his running. those are easy questions. the court is certainly not gonna go with trump on those. so if you are pragmatist, you are likely to say that they could cut this gordian not in half. they could basically say that of course presidents are not immune from crimes they commit, whether while they're in office

Decision , Place , Congress , Procedure , Textualism , Uniform , One , Colorado-state-supreme-court , Case , Sense , Fact , Immunity

Katy Tur Reports

was very clear that this provision, which was put in place after the civil war, was meant to say that people who were in positions of responsibility in the government, who then engaged in insurrection, who essentially sought to overturn the authority of the constitution shouldn't be put back in charge of it. we think the language is very clear on that. we think that as we've looked at that language as it appears in the constitution as a whole and as it was understood at the time, clearly applies to the president. and that, you know, this is one case where originalism makes clear that the purpose of this constitutional provision is to protect the republic from those who attacked it in exactly the way that donald trump did. and so, you know, that if you

People , Place , Positions , Responsibility , Provision , Civil-war , Government , Insurrection , Language , Authority , Charge , Constitution-shouldn-t

Deadline White House

lot of consternation around this question. and, yet, the ball is moving down the field. >> yes. i mean, the -- i would have talked to marc's point about originalism, if you look at the 14th amendment, section 3 from an originalist perspective, you say, sure, they're talking about confederate generals, they're talking about confederate soldiers who took up arms against the republic. but if you look at the 14th amendment as a whole, the 14th amendment, which was the post civil war amendment, is incredibly important and it is famously for incorporating the bill of rights into the federal constitution. basically the first time the court said the bill of rights applies to the states. so i think the court has to look at this in the macro context that this is an important amendment and it is something that they can't just do some technical qualification, that it is not -- donald trump is not eligible because he's not an officer in the way that other

Point , Standpoint , Insurrection-question , Section , 14th-amendment , Yes , Ball , Consternation , Originalism , The-field , 14 , Generals