decided with no commentary,

no interruptions and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. host: joining us is r from -- before we go into details about it the 14th amendment itself, can you give a history or a background on how it came to be. guest: 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 strike at the slaveholding class was to pass a

constitutional provision that said any former or present state or federal officehold who participated in a rebellion is forever disqualified from holding office in the uni states unless the disqualification was removed by a two thirds vote of both parties of congress. st: how many times since its inception hasn't been applied? guest: there has been a spate of applications early on but after 1872 when congress amnesty to almost all persons subject to section three, the only time it was applied until recently was to a representative, victor berger in 1920. then it was applied last summer

to a county commissioner in new mexico who was at the insurrection, cody griffith. host:host: when you hear the arguments or calls for applying the amendment directly to former president trump, would do you make of those calls and doesn't have a basis -- does it have a basis? guest: it does have a basis. there have not been a lot of insurrections in the united states since the civil war and the insurrectionists have not run for office. everyone agrees that trump is a former officeholder in the united states. there is a good deal of evidence that he participated in the insurrection. if so then he is disqualified from holding office under section three of the 14th amendment, which is as much a part of the constitution is the first amendment.

host: you said you are not an expert in the evidence, but as far as what you have seen or heard over the last several months or years, what did he do in order to make the 14th amendment apply in your mind? guest: several things. first, he appeared to have egged on the effort to storm the capitol. he second, appear to have known or had evidence that 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 is involved, even if they are not at the actual scene of the insurrection is an insurrectionist. host: by the speech that he gave

ed what he said or did -- dave and what he said or -- gave and what he said or did not say is what qualifies him for insurrection? guest: he gave the speech knowing that this was likely to incite an insurrection against the united states. host: as far as the application is concerned there was a case in new mexico where someone running for office was taken off the ballot. i think you are part of that by extension. can you explain what happened in that situation? guest: this was an existing county commissioner. he was not on the ballot. he was removed from office. the reason why was very clear. he participated in the insurrection. he participated in encouraging

people to use force and violence against capitol police officers in an attempt to storm the capitol. there was agreement january 6 was an insurrection. he participated. that was sufficient to disqualify him under the 14th amendment. i was the expert on section three. host: who brought the case against the official? guest: the committee for responsibility and ethics in washington or crew for short. host: there was a piece on cnn. "the broad interpretations of the clause went too far as far as who could be ensnared by it. one not need to have personally

used force fall under this clause. one can use words that provoke insurrection. this view of the insurrection could in theory apply to a politician who speaks empathetically of protesters in a protest that eventually turns violent." guest: that person is mistak en on the law of insurrection. 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 where desire that outcome -- know or desire that outcome. it is another thing when someone speaks with the intention of

provoking an insurrection. when a person says we need to be peaceful and some people old in the rally -- people in the rally are not peaceful, that is not incitement. host: if you want to ask him questions about the 14th amendment, here is how you can ask him. it is (202) 748-8000 four democrats. -- it is (202) 748-8000 for democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. do you see a scenario playing out on specifically how the 14th amendment would be used against the former president? what is the likely scenario in your mind should it happen? guest: it is already happening. a lawsuit by crew has been filed in california. a few other lawsuits have been

filed in other states. it would not surprise me if a number of states disqualify. 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 is going on before the final election season begins. host: as you alluded to it is the front page of the washington times, highlighting that should this process begin, it would end up at the supreme court. how might that influence the final results should it happen? guest: one can simply say 6 republicans, 3 democrats. 6-3 trump stays on the ballot. for many republicans in private,

trump is an albatross although they do not say this in public. it might be 2 justices, republican justices on the supreme court saying "the president did participate in an insurrection. he is disqualified. let's get this albatross off of the republicans' back." host: mark graber is the author of the book "punish treason, reward loyalty." first call for you is from irene. irene is from colorado, democrats' line. caller: good morning. i was calling about marjorie taylor greene. why wasn't she taken off the ballot when they press charges against her? i am a democrat, so i'm just curious.

how did she get reelected? guest: the answer first is remember this was not being taken off the ballot. this was being removed from office. the question becomes was a 14th amendment suit filed? how was it adjudicated? i don't know the specific case in colorado. no one made the 14th amendment point. if my new grandson, who is almost two months old, runs for office and no one objects, he gets in even though he is not qualified for office. someone must begin the process of disqualification. chances are that did not happen in colorado. host: california, that is where vicki is, republican line. caller: i just wondered what would happen if millions and

millions of people boycott the election? that is what can happen if you take trump off of the ballot. he has got millions of supporters. that doesn't sound constitutional to me, and i don't think he committed any crimes. i don't know why c-span has this guy on. he is so biased, you could kick him up a tree and he would stick. host: there is vicki's assessment. caller: first -- guest: first, my coordination isn't good enough to climb a tree. the short answer is if trump is off the ballot, everyone can still vote. this is not an attempt to disqualify people. you can vote for people who endorse trump's policies. if there is an effort to disqualify trump, there should be a hearing. in