the impact of these iconic works and virtual journeys to significant locations across the country into quickly tied to these celebrated authors and their unforgettable books. among our featured books, common sense by thomas paine, huckleberry finn by mark twain, their eyes were watching god by zora neale hurston, and free to choose milton and rose freeman. watch our 10 part series, books that shaped america, starting monday, september 18th at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. c-span now, a free mobile video apple or live on c-span.org. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including buckeye broadband.

>> buckeye broadband supports c- span as a public service along with these other television providers. giving you a front row seat to democracy. joining us for a discussion on the 14th amendment and how it might be applied in the next election is professor mark raber of the university of maryland law school. he is a constitutional law professor. thanks for joining us today, professor. thanks for giving us your time. >> thank you for having me. >> before we go into the details about it, the 14th amendment itself, can you give a history, a background of how it came to be? >> one of the main goals of the republican party after the civil war was to make sure loyal people ruled both the united states and the former confederate states, and one way

they thought to sort of strike at the slaveholding class was to pass a constitutional provision that says any former or present state or federal in an insurrection or rebellion will forever this bar or disqualify holding office in the united states unless th disqualification was removed by a two thirds vote of both hous congress. >> how many times since its inception has it been applied? >> there was a bit of a state of application early on, but after about 1872, when congress amnesty almost all persons subject to section 3, the only time it was applied, until recently, was to a representative, victor berger, in 1920. then it was applied this summer

or last summer to a county commissioner in new mexico who was at the insurrection, cayleigh griffin. >> when you hear then the argument or the calls for applying the amendment directly to former president trump, what do you make of those calls and does it have a basis? >> i think it does have a basis. the reason for the rarity of use is since the civil war there have not been a lot of insurrections in the united states, and the insurrectionist have not run for office. everybody agrees trump is a former officeholder in the united states. there's a good deal of evidence. i'm not an expert on the evidence, there's a good deal of evidence that he participated in the insurrection. if so, then he's disqualified from holding office under

section 3 of the 14th amendment, which is as much a part of the constitution as the first amendment. >> you said you're not an expert in the evidence, but as far as what you've seen or at least have heard over the last several months or years, what exactly was the former president's action done or what did he do in order to make the 14th amendment apply, in your mind? >> several things. first, he appeared to have egged on the effort to storm the capitol. he appeared to have known or have evidence this was happening. he did not use his powers to stop this. he seemed to engage in the insurrection, as engagement was understood by section 3. one of the features of the american law of insurrection is anyone who was involved, even if they are not at the actual scene of

the insurrection, is an insurrectionist. >> so by the speech that he gave and what he said or didn't say after the speech, that's what qualifies the use of the 14th amendment, in your mind? >> as well as his knowledge of what was happening, that he gave the speech knowing that this was likely to incite an insurrection against the united states. >> i think you alluded to this, but as far as the application is concerned, there was a case in new mexico where someone running for office was taken off the ballot by this team and i think you were part of that, by extension. correct me if i'm wrong but if that's the case can you explain what happened in that situation? >> slightly different. this was actually an existing county commissioner who was not on the ballot. he was removed from office and the reason why, it was very

clear that he participated in the insurrection. he participated in encouraging people to use force and violence against capitol police officers in attempt to storm the capitol. there was agreement september 6th was an insurrection. he participated actively. that was sufficient to disqualify him under section 3 of the 14th amendment. i was the expert witness on the history of section 3. >> who brought the case against the officials? >> an organization, a public interest organization called the committee for responsibility and ethics in washington, or crew for short. >> you say that, there was a piece in cnn with someone to take a look specifically at what crew against him and the person wrote this in his analysis, saying the broad interpretations of the clause

extended too far in terms of who could be ensnared by it. according to the crew lawsuit and the new mexico trial court, one need not personal use force to fall under this qualification clause. rather, one can engage in insurrection with words in furtherance of the insurrection, including words that provoke, encourage or command others to engage in insurrectionary conduct. this view of the insurrection could apply to an elected official, speaks prophetically to a protest against unjust law where the protest unexpectedly turned violent. is there a ripple effect when it comes to the use of this when it comes to elected officials? >> that is simply mistaken on the law of insurrection. the law of insurrection requires knowingly, if for some reason someone is particularly angry at this conversation and burns down the local television station, we are not responsible because we had no reason to know or desire that outcome. it is one thing when a person speaks with the intention of

provoking an insurrection, but when a person says we need to be peaceful, and some people in the rally are not peaceful, that person is not an insurrectionist. >> this is mark graber joining us for the conversation. if you want to ask him questions about the use of the 14th amendment, especially when it comes to former president trump, here is how you can ask him. it's 242-748-8004 democrats, republicans 242-748-8001. independents, 242-748-8002. if you want to text us your thoughts, 242-748-8 thousand three. specifically how the 14th amendment will be used against the former president, what's the likely scenario in your mind, should that happen? >> it's already happening.

a lawsuit by crew has been filed in colorado. a few other attorneys have filed in various states. it would not surprise me. a number of states disqualify, a number of states do not, and likely the issue will come before the supreme court. chances are the supreme court will try to move this case very quickly so we can clearly know what's going on before the final election season really begins. >> and as you alluded to, it's front page on the washington times that highlights the fact that should this process begin, it would end at the supreme court. given the current makeup of the supreme court, what do you think of how that might influence the final results, should it happen? >> one can simply say six republicans, three democrats, 6-

3, trump stays on the ballot. but for a great many republicans in private, trump is an albatross, although they do not say this in public, so it might be two justices, republican justices on the supreme court, say the person did participate in an insurrection. he is disqualified. let's get this albatross off the republicans back. >> again, mark graber at the university of maryland law school. he's a constitutional law professor. he's also the author of the book, by the way, forgotten goals of the controversial constitutional reform after the civil war. first call for you is from irene and irene is from colorado. democrats line, you're on with professor mark graber of the university of maryland. irene, go ahead. >> good morning. i was calling about marjorie taylor greene, why wasn't she taken off the ballot when they pressed charges against her, and the new mexico guy wasn't

even on the ballot and they took him off? i'm on the democrat so i'm just curious how did she get reelected. >> the answer first is remember this is not been taken off the ballot, this was removed from office. but the question becomes was a 14th amendment suit filed? how was it adjudicated? i don't know the specific case in colorado. chances are no one made the 14th amendment points. so for example, if my new grandson, who is almost 2 months old, runs for office and no one objects, he gets in, even though he's not qualified for office. someone must begin the process of disqualification. chances are that didn't happen in colorado. >> california, that's where vicky is. republican line. >> yes, i just wondered what

would happen if millions and millions of people boycott the election. that's what can happen if you take trump off of the ballot because he's got millions of supporters. that doesn't sound constitutional to me and i don't think he committed any crimes. and i don't know why c-span has this guy on. he's so biased you could stick him up a tree and he does stick. >> there is vicky's assessment. professor, if you want to respond. >> my coordination isn't good enough to climb a tree, but the short answer is if trump is off the ballot, everybody can still vote. so this is not an attempt to disqualify people. you can vote for people. who endorsed trump's policy.

if trump is -- or there is an effort to disqualify trump, there should be a hearing, and in fact if trump did not participate in the insurrection, he will not be disqualified. >> you heard and probably seen the former president responding to these efforts, whether it be the indictments against him or this effort specifically calling it election interference. what do you make of that claim? >> it's called election interference. it's simply enforcing the constitution. now again, i am not an expert and trump may have defense if he did not participate in an insurrection. but what the 14th amendment says, if you have such contempt for constitutional democracy in the united states that you resist the law by force and violence, you should not be a

governing official in the united states. so the question is, did trump resist the implementation of the electoral count act, the implementation of a constitutional rule for electing the president? did he participate in a resistance by force or violence? if he did, he should be disqualified. if he didn't, he should be on the ballot. >> let's hear from steve in maryland, independent line. you're next up. >> yes, good morning, everyone. my question for the gentleman scholar is -- is a conviction required for this? i'm just a layperson and my understanding of the constitution from all of my classes and civics in high school and in college is that it's filled with things like due process and rights and freedom of speech for people, and we presume innocence before

guilt. and my concern, i'm not a fan of donald trump by any means, but i'm concerned about the process here as an american citizen, that someone could be banned from running for office without their first being some kind of process in place through the court system, or is my understanding wrong on this? i would love to hear from you. thank you. >> you're absolutely right. there is a need for process and in fact in the griffin case in new mexico there was a trial where they had to put on evidence that kelly griffin had participated in an insurrection and mr. griffin has a full opportunity to refute that evidence. so while section 3 is not a criminal provision, it's a civil provision, it nevertheless requires some kind

of hearing where there is evidence there was a chance to refute the evidence. mr. trump gets disqualified only if people can prove in a court of law that he participated in an insurrection. >> it was georgia secrof state brad raffensperger talking abou in a recent op-ed, professor. wre this, for a secretary of state to removethe candidate would only reinforce the grievances of those who view the system is rigged and corrupt, denying voters the opportunity to choose is fundamentally un-american. since our founding, americans have believed that the government is just when it's earned in the consent of the governed, taking away the ability to choose or object to the eligibility of candidates eliminates that consent for slightly less than half of the country. >> the problem is the constitution removes choices. you may think a 33-year-old is

the best qualified person to be president, or a person not born in the united states, but that person is ineligible under the constitution. remember we are not simply talking about choice in 2024, but also in 2028. if a person has shown such contempt for constitutional democracy that they have tried to overturn the result of a legitimate election per go if they are elected president, can you guarantee a legitimate election in the next four years? so we're talking about what is the best decision for the overall health of constitutional democracy in the united states? not simply in 2024, but going forward in the future. >> from illinois, democrats line, victoria is next. >> my question is for mr.

graber. thank you for taking my call. i understand 14.3 two mean also that they give aid and comfort to insurrectionist, and i think that's been proven because president trump has said, we love you, go home, after they committed this horrible crime, and then proceeded to support them after they were jailed, and he even claims that he will pardon them if he gets to be president again. so that's my question. is that just as important, to give aid and comfort, as it is to participate? thank you for taking my call. >> a technical point about both treason and section 3 of the 14th amendment. treason can be giving aid and comfort to the enemy of the united states.

that refers to a foreign nation. so if i were to sell nuclear secrets to north korea, i will have given aid and comfort to america's enemy. an insurrection is something that is done by the citizens of the united states. the constitution does not basically aid and comfort. it actually requires that you participate in some way, so the mere fact that i cheer on the insurrectionist is not likely sufficient. what has to be shown, what crew and other organizations have to show, eventually in the court of law, that donald trump participated, and not merely that donald trump -- >> pat in new jersey, you're next. >> you said earlier that

president trump did nothing to prevent the violence from happening, but he offered nancy pelosi the opportunity to approach national guard. she turned him down. she and schumer turned him down. he did nothing to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power when his term was up, on january 60 was still president. he had two more weeks to go, and when his term was up he left the white house. isn't insurrection highly subjective? it's in the eye of the beholder. how can a secretary of state or even the jury make this charge stick? thank you. >> so you raised a defense of mr. trump. you claimed that mr. trump did all he could to stop the insurrection. if in fact your facts are correct and found by a court of law, then mr. trump should not be disqualified.

there are claims in the other way that mr. trump knew about the probability of an insurrection in advance, that he actively encouraged the insurrection, that he did things to further the cause of the insurrection. those are facts also that are not yet proven in a court of law. what i can say, and my expertise is in the 19th century american legal history, is that these facts are proven. trump should be disqualified. these facts are not yet proven. >> it's a separate issue, mr. graber, but does it matter that the former president wasn't charged in jack smith's indictment either, with inciting seditious conspiracy? >> no, the people who have been disqualified were not charged criminally.

remember, criminal is different than civil. among other things, in a criminal case you need beyond reasonable doubt. in a civil case, preponderance of evidence, and prosecutors charge people for a lot of different reasons. so the crucial question is not what's going on in the criminal cases, it is, is there sufficient evidence to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that trump participated in an insurrection. >> our conversation with mark graber continues. you can call on the line, you can post on our social media site. you can text us at 242-748- 8003. this is from emmanuel in washington, independent line. >> thank you for letting me speak my voice. i appreciate your program. my reason for calling is the

insurrection on the sixth, those that got there did not come on their own. some came to obstruct the election. now if this is okay, and they came under the order of somebody, the person who counted them to come should be prosecuted and if he's not going to be prosecuted why are they prosecuted for coming? >> you raise another very good, factual point. why were the people there? who organized them? how did they get there? again, i'm not the fact expert. what i can say is any person who organized people for the

purpose of engaging in an insurrection, that person, if they are a former or present officeholder, is disqualified. is donald trump that person? i don't know. we have to wait to see what the evidence sees but any person who did do the organization, knowing of the probability of an insurrection would be disqualified if they meet the other conditions of section 3. >> in its history of the 14th amendment, professor, what evidence has been brought in order to ensure a conviction, so to speak, in this case, that someone was deemed unqualified because of the 14th amendment? >> in the kelly griffin trial, for some reason unknown to lots of people, mr. griffith had a private photographer taking pictures of him crossing the

barrier, taking pictures of him urging violence against police officers, so that was the sort of evidence. in the yearly congressional cases, as state court cases, people presented evidence this person, for example, purchased the substances to fight in the confederate army. this person was an officer in the confederate government. it's the usual evidence you would expect at a hearing that was deciding whether a person participated in insurrection. there are witnesses. there are exhibits, the usual law stuff. >> if that's the case, then -- and it's speculative at best but what kind of evidence would have to be brought against the former president in order to make this stick? >> i would suspect the evidence that was used in the select

committee for january 6th. you would see film of president trump's speech. you would have testimony about what president trump did before, during, and after january 6th to try to show he was not simply in observance of the event, but a participant in the event. >> from tom in florida, democrats line, you are next. >> thank you, good morning mr. graber. i'd just like to make a statement. first i do have a similar question. you hear this a lot now about judges. they count the number of democrats and the number of republicans and how this case will be decided because they

are political. i'm a liberal democrat but i don't particularly like that. i think that there is judges that i may not like, that are selected by people that i didn't vote for, but when they are judges i want them to -- i want to live in a country where they're going to sort of toe the line of the law. it seems like all of us are moving too much toward this business of who appointed them, and what, and how they will decide because of that. anyway, in this case here, how does this stack up, this application of this law with the federalist society and what they've been saying now for about 40 years or so in this area of law and the original list and all that. you are a professor of law and all that. how does this stack up with them as opposed to where i always grew up thinking that the constitution was a living document and it can be interpreted different ways as we move on as a nation, in our history. >> thanks, color.

>> well first, your point is well taken, in one sense we do not want judges who are representative of the democratic party or republican party. on the other hand, we have to expect that a president believes , say, the constitution grants a right to an abortion. the president is likely to appoint judges who also believe that, and similarly, if the president believes the constitution does not protect the right to abortion, the president is likely to appoint judges who believe that. so put me on the court and i'm likely to vote for abortion rights. not because i'm paying tribute to the democratic president who appointed me, but i believe the constitution in some way protects abortion rights. now the question is, no one is put on the court for their

beliefs about section 3. if you adopt an original list approach, as many of the conservatives do, section 3 is very, very broad. our host alluded earlier to a cnn piece. republicans in 1865 did not have broad notions of free speech. say happy birthday. jefferson davis was an act of treason. we don't think so. but if you go by the original understanding, participation is broadly understood, so the question will be our judges, who are originalists, declaring there is no constitutional right to an abortion, will they also be originalists in interpreting section 3 of the 14th amendment. i don't know. >> that also depends on how the lower courts react to this, should it go up the line that way. >> that's correct. though it would not surprise me

to see the supreme court do what they've done. in some cases, for example, the covid cases and some immigration cases, and grabbed these cases quickly from the lower federal court, so in some ways skipping a line of decision. >> the university of maryland law school is where our professor teaches. he's a professional constitutional law professor. mark graber for this discussion. let's hear from mary. mary is in michigan, republican line. you are on with our guest, good morning. >> good morning and thank you for having me. i am a conservative republican. i am an educated college woman. i am owner of a small business and a mother of three children, and i am just appalled at how many educated christian people

can in any way, shape or form support a candidate like trump, because he clearly in my eyes has broken the law in numerous ways, not just in insurrection, but putting pressure on the georgia person in charge of the votes to get additional votes. he is, in my opinion, a liar, a narcissist, he is power-hungry. i just can't believe that there are intelligent people out there who want to vote for him again, and it really is just a disservice to our party and our

country. >> do you have a question related to the 14th amendment? >> i believe that the 14th amendment has been broken by trump. i really do believe that he -- i watched the hearings and i really do believe he broke the 14th amendment and he should be charged, and he really should be in jail. >> that's mary there. professor, if you want to respond. >> here is the issue. and i'm on the different side of the political fence, and i'm very hesitant about giving advice to people on the other side, but as you point out, mr. trump comes with severe liabilities. even in the eyes of many people will agree with lots of his policies. and so the question is do you want to support a person with such contempt for the law and

the rules of constitutional democracy? when you have plenty of other people on your side of the fence who will defend your policy with more integrity. given my politics, i'm not a big fan of the other people running for president on the republican side, but i would not disqualify any of them. i would vigorously oppose an attempt to disqualify any of them. the american people will have a right to vote for all of them because they will play by the rules of constitutional democracy, broadly understood. >> before we go to robin, professor, if one of the convictions, currently charges against the former president stick, one of these four indictments, we've asked people

this over the years, does the constitution still allow him an avenue to the presidency, do you think? >> eugene debs ran for the presidency in jail, got over 1 million votes. had he been elected, it would've been complicated how you serve in prison, but he would have been president of the united states. >> let's hear from robin in alabama, independent line. hi there. >> how you doing, i wonder how would a protest to a wry it be an insurrection? question two would be the way the january 6th committee was a legit committee, and the third question is, do you believe that president trump was guilty of insurrection? thank you. >> good questions. the common law distinguishes

between a wry it and an insurrection. a wry it is a spontaneous outbreak of violence. an insurrection is a planned attempt to resist the execution of the law by force or violence for a public purpose. a riad, you are angry at a police officer and you throw a rick. an insurrection, you are trying to prevent people from executing a law. was january 6th an insurrection? the select committee, republicans were given an opportunity to be on the select committee. all you can do is read their report and decide for yourself. to meet the report reads right. you may disagree if you read

it. i think the evidence tends to show, from what i've read, that donald trump knew about the probable insurrection and provided what assistance he could from the white house. but again, i've been following this from a distance. i'm mostly concerned about the history of insurrection. that could easily be the evidence will show my initial beliefs were wrong. that's why we have trials in here. >> you said -- you thought that if he was guilty, the caller asked. >> yes, yes. guilty is the wrong word because it's not a criminal trial, but if you said, give me an answer now, i would say disqualified. but the better answer i think would be, i'd like to hear the evidence, more of it. i'd like to hear mr. trump

respond to the evidence and then make up my mind. >> you said you were involved in that, one case involving crew , i think it was, who brought the suit against the new mexico politician. correct me if i'm incorrect. but you plan to be involved if crew does bring a case against the former president himself? >> that's up to crew. i am right now writing up a amicus brief on the history of common-law insurrection in the united states. if they just proved to be a piece of paper that winds up in an obscure academic journal. it might be crew uses it, it might be mr. trump find some use for it. i don't know. that's for the future to decide.

>> from new jersey, democrats line, this is joe. >> good morning. thank you for taking my call. sir, i'm wondering if the fact that the speaker of the house that the time, and trumps family members, people who were in political positions as well as people who knew him personally, called him on that day and asked him to please ask the rioters to stop or go home, and he did not do so immediately, does that in any way speak to his culpability? >> what is presented is evidence that mr. trump was in fact doing, what he could do in his office to further the insurrection. it's evidence and it's relevant but it's for the trier of fact to determine. >> you probably have heard the name jonathan turley over the several weeks and months of this topic being brought up, and he was on fox news just

recently making the case, pushing against using the 14th amendment. this was in response to comments made by adam schiff on msnbc, but in light of that, here's what he had to say. i want you to respond to it. >> does getting left-leaning state attorneys general, as adam schiff was referring to, getting them involved here, does that give this wacky 14th amendment strategy any more heft or credibility? >> i don't think it does. there are academics that have thought about this seriously and have supported this theory. i thought it was the most dangerous theory that has emerged in decades. i think it's entirely unsupported by the text and the history of the 14th amendment. the provision was written after the civil war, but after actual rebellion were hundreds of thousands of people died. there was an army on the other side. they had their own foreign- policy. that's a rebellion.

now that doesn't necessarily mean that it can't be used for anything that isn't of that magnitude, but it is notable that trump has not been charged even with incitement, let alone rebellion or insurrection, yet they say that this doesn't even require an act of congress, that any judge can simply announced that he was supporting an insurrection and that he's therefore disqualified and voters will not get the choice of whether to vote for him or not. that's what makes this so dangerous. i don't think this will withstand review. they could end up getting a couple of judges to go with them. but in the long run i think it will be rejected. that's why i'm eager for them to take it to court so we can finally put this on the road and see if they can take it on, get this off the ground. i don't think it will.

>> those are mr. turley's thoughts on the matter. what do you think? >> a great many things. first, one might note that republicans, who are hardly left-leaning, in new hampshire, are bringing section 3 lawsuits. going back, concerned with section 3 is across the political spectrum. and section 3 is in the constitution. it's no more wacky than the first or second amendment. and in fact if you look at the history of section 3, originally it simply referred to people who participated in the late rebellion, limited to the civil war. but they changed it and the reason was, as they said, that we are worried about future insurrection. so one of those insurrections that people apply this to was by the clan. the clan went down and murdered people. that was an insurrection. only a few people, but it's still an insurrection. so again, the question is the definition of insurrection, as

i've indicated, an attempt to resist the implementation of federal law by force or violence. that's the common-law definition. was president trump involved? if he was he should be disqualified. if not, he shouldn't be. there's nothing wacky about that . >> this is kerry in illinois, independent line. >> good morning, gentlemen. from what i understand, from what this gentleman is saying, i agree with it. he should be disqualified. but i also want to make this point, too. the lady said how president nancy pelosi should have dispatched the national guard, is not true. isn't that under the commander- in-chief, which is the president? he has the authority in dc to dispatch the national guard, when he sat there and watched

the malay take place and did nothing, that was his responsibility. am i correct or am i wrong? i would like to know that question so people can quit saying that it's nancy pelosi, when i see it was the authority of the president to release the national guard in that situation, on january 6th, 2021. >> okay color, thanks. >> i want to distinguish two situations. first, what about protection before january 6th? is there more that could be done? and here we could say that lots of people could have done more. the president, nancy pelosi, the capitol police. they didn't and they didn't for perfectly good faith reasons. they were not aware. once the insurrection happened, nancy pelosi was running for her life. the person who would have been responsible for that point was

donald trump and there is evidence that donald trump deliberately chose to let the insurrection go on. there is evidence that is deliberately weak, there may be counter evidence. >> one more call. this will be from rachel in florida, republican line. >> yes. i still don't think there would have been an insurrection at all if the capitol had been protected the way it should have been. i can't believe we are a superpower and we can't even protect our capitol from people having bear spray and flagpoles. that's just ridiculous. nobody got to the bottom of that in this january 6th committee. i wasn't our capitol protected? i mean was it trump? was it nancy pelosi? you can't tell me nancy pelosi is asserting control, started lying to the president to call

up the national guard. >> i think the answer is the reason why the capitol was not adequately protected is in many ways a good thing. i live in the area. i can cycle up to the capitol, where our representatives meet. the american people had access to the capitol. they can watch our representatives in action, and i think that's a very good thing for democracy. so it turns out the capitol was under protected on january 6th. it may have been. they wanted the american people to watch what was going on. that took the risk of an insurrection, but in a democracy, all things being equal, you trust the people not

to riot and rebelled. >> "the new york times" analysis of those decisions adding that ms. pelosi has considerable influence as the speaker but she's not responsible for the security of congress. that's the job of the capitol police, an agency ms. pelosi only indirectly influences. it also says that mr. mccarthy and others have said that ms. pelosi refused please by the capitol police to provide backup like the national guard ahead of january 6th. the speaker of the house does not control the national guard and while congress could've requested support in advance, that decision lies with the capitol police force, not the speaker. that aside, as the days played out, professor, where do you see it as far as indicators that there may be an effort to take this 14th amendment process seriously? >> lawsuits have already been filed. crew has filed a lawsuit in colorado. i have it on fairly good authority, other lawsuits are

coming, and the people at crew, that's another public organization, free speech for the people, whatever you think of them, they are competent, excellent attorneys. their brief is well-prepared. this is something that's been taken seriously, as you've noted. cnn is covering, the times is covering. we spent an hour here discussing the issues and in some ways the most important audience is not nine justices on the supreme court, but everybody listening to the program and their friends and neighbors. based on the evidence, do you think donald trump attempted to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election by force and violence? and if you did, is this person qualified to be president of

the united states? and if not, can you vote for him? that in some ways, even if he is not disqualified by a court, he may be disqualified by voters who do not believe his actions on january 6th are those of a person who ought to be president of the united states. >> our guest's book is punish treason, reward loyalty, the forgotten goals of the constitutional reform after the civil war. he teaches as a constitutional law professor at the university of maryland law school. mark graber for this discussion. professor graber, thanks for your time, really appreciate it. >> thank you for having me. >> taking a look at 2024 from the lens of the latino voter, joining us for this discussion, daniel garza of the libre initiative. he serves asei