Section 3. 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.
国会研究处还指出，最高法院在1975年沃斯诉塞尔丁案（英语：Warth v. Seldin）中要求，原告必须“‘声称与争议的结果有个人利害关系’，以保证他有权援引联邦法院的管辖权，并有理由行使法院为其辩护的救济权力”[51][49]。然而，最高法院在1989年阿萨科诉卡迪什案中指出，它“经常承认，宪法第三条的限制不适用于州法院，因此州法院不受案件、争议或其他联邦可诉性规则的限制，即使在处理联邦法律问题时，例如在它们被要求解释宪法时”[52][49]。虽然最高法院关于非司法性的政治问题理论是在1803年马伯里诉麦迪逊案中确立的[53][54]，但衡量争议是否构成政治问题的现代检验标准是在1962年贝克诉卡尔案（英语：Baker v. Carr）中确立的，该标准有六项：
布莱克曼和蒂尔曼援引最高法院大法官约瑟夫·斯多利撰写的《美国宪法评注（英语：Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States）》[68]指出，考虑到“合众国官员”（officer of the United States）和“合众国下的职务”（office under the United States）这两个词组在宪法第一条、第二条和第六条中的用法，总统不是美国政府官员。他们认为，这两个词组是指联邦政府内不同类别职位的法律术语[69][註 4]。布莱克曼和蒂尔曼进一步指出，前一个词组排除了联邦政府所有立法部门的官员，根据1867年密西西比州诉约翰逊案[74]、1867年合众国诉哈特韦尔案[75]、1888年合众国诉穆阿特案[76]以及2010年自由企业基金诉上市公司会计监督委员会案[77]的裁决，联邦政府的民选官员不属于“合众国官员”之列。另外在1788年批准的联邦宪法和在1868年批准的宪法第十四修正案二十年后作出的穆阿特裁决之间，“合众国官员”的含义没有任何变化[78]。基于他们发表的法律评论文章，布莱克曼和蒂尔曼还合作撰写了一篇法律评论文章，回应鲍德和保尔森[79][80]。
2007年，法律顾问办公室（英语：Office of Legal Counsel）发布一份意见，根据任命条款审查了巴克利诉瓦莱奥案的判决。该意见认为：“由法律授权代表联邦政府部分主权权力且‘持续’任职的职位，即为联邦公职……（并且）担任此职位的人必须是……‘合众国官员’”[註 7][94]。马斯科特指出，法律顾问办公室和最高法院在巴克利诉瓦莱奥案之后的案件中扩展了“官员”一词的原始公共含义，将第一届美国国会不会视为“官员”的职位也纳入其中，但也将其原始公共含义限制为仅包括被“大量”授予主权权力的职位[95]。
在麦卡洛克诉马里兰州案中，最高法院支持国会于1816年根据宪法第一条第八款的必要及适当条款（英语：Necessary and Proper Clause）颁布美国第二银行章程的权力，并指出第一届美国国会曾积极辩论颁布美国第一银行章程是否符合宪法，但“在先是公平公开的辩论中遭到抵制，随后又在行政内阁中遭到抵制……（该法案）于1791年成为法律”，且由于该法律“是对宪法的阐述，由立法行为刻意确立……（并且）不容轻易忽视”，法院得出结论，在麦卡洛克案裁决作出时，国会是否有权成立银行“几乎不能被视为一个悬而未决的问题”[144][145][146][99]。拉什与布莱克曼和蒂尔曼[147][148]一致认为，第三款将总统排除在外，第二条弹劾条款将总统排除在“合众国文职官员”之外，第四款的规定使得人们得出结论，认为总统不是合众国官员[149][150][151]。
与马格里奥卡一样，鲍德和保尔森引用了参议员约翰逊和莫里尔之间的对话来反驳布莱克曼和蒂尔曼的论点，并进一步指出，布莱克曼和蒂尔曼的论点“令人难以置信地在语言上吹毛求疵”[167]。弗拉霍普拉斯认为，根据第三款的规定，总统是合众国官员，总统职位是合众国下的一个职位。他引用了1862年制定的絕對忠誠誓詞中的一段话，该誓言规定：“除美国总统外，所有在美国政府下当选或被任命担任任何荣誉或有偿职位的人，无论是在文职、陆军还是海军公共服务部门”[168]。弗拉霍普拉斯认为，这承认了总统职位是“合众国下的一个职位”[169]。林奇同样引用了絕對忠誠誓詞来论证总统是合众国官员[170]，还引用了美国哥伦比亚特区巡回法院（英语：United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia）的一项裁决，该裁决在最高法院于1838年在肯德尔诉美国前法官斯托克斯案中维持原判，称“总统本人……只不过是美国的一名官员”[171][172]。
同样，弗拉霍普拉斯表示，国会议员认为总统的就职宣誓与宣誓或确认条款要求的就职宣誓之间没有区别[169]。弗拉霍普拉斯辩称，“合众国官员”和“合众国下的职位”这两个词组之间存在“本质上的和谐”，因此可以得出结论，总统是“合众国官员”，而总统职位是“合众国下的职位”[178]。拉什指出，共和党国会议员嘲笑安德鲁·约翰逊总统将总统称为“美国首席民事行政官”（chief civil executive officer of the United States）[179]，但弗拉霍普拉斯指出，从乔治·华盛顿到詹姆斯·加菲尔德，历任总统通常被公众以及第39届美国国会特指为“美国第一行政官”（first executive officer of the United States）和“美国首席行政官”（chief executive officer of the United States），并在总统选举过程中，根据宪法规定担任行政部门首脑[180]。此外，最高法院在1982年尼克松诉菲茨杰拉德案（英语：Nixon v. Fitzgerald）中指出，根据美国宪法第二条第一款的授权条款授予的行政权“确立了总统作为行政部门首席宪法官员的地位”[181][156]。
在关于多尔叛乱（英语：Dorr Rebellion）结束后在罗德岛建立的州政府和宪法或根据罗德岛皇家宪章（英语：Rhode Island Royal Charter）运作的州政府，是宪法第四条第四款保证条款项下合法的州政府的争议中[207]，最高法院在1849年的路德诉博登案中裁定，该争议是一个政治问题，只能由国会决定[208][209][210]。国会研究处援引最高法院在路德诉博登案中的裁决，认为《叛乱法》通常将判定民间骚乱是否构成叛乱的决定权留给总统，但根据第三款，总统可以援引该法判定其为叛乱，并取消其资格[196]。鲍德和保尔森援引最高法院在1863年“普莱斯案”中的裁决，指出“这场最大规模的内战并非由民众骚乱、喧嚣集会或地方无组织的叛乱逐渐发展起来……（而是）在战争的全面爆发中突然爆发。总统有义务以呈现的形式应对，而不必等待国会为其命名”[註 16][211][212]。相反，格雷伯对宪法第十四修正案批准前联邦和州关于叛乱的判例法进行研究，指出联邦和州法院从未要求检察官在与叛乱相关的案件中提供总统公告发布的证据[213]。
国会研究处还表示，总统援引《反叛乱法》可能并非必要，即可将某一事件定性为叛乱，原因是民兵条款和宪法第十四修正案第五款可能也赋予国会立法权，可以将某一事件定性为叛乱，以便根据第三款确定是否取消其任职资格[196][214]。虽然最高法院在1827年的马丁诉莫特案中裁定“决定民兵条款和 1795 年民兵法所设想的紧急情况是否已经发生的权力，完全属于总统，他的决定对所有其他人具有决定性作用”[註 17][215]，但林奇辩称，国会或法院不太可能仅仅因为总统判断叛乱是否因潜在的滥用权力而发生，就允许根据第三款取消公职人员的资格[216]。鲍德和保尔森引用普莱斯案件的判例，指出“反对政府的起义可能会或可能不会发展成有组织的叛乱，但内战总是始于反对政府合法权威的起义”，并认为“作乱”和“反叛”在法律上是不同的。1828年和1864年版的《美国英语词典》、1860年精简版的《韦氏词典》以及1868年出版的第12版《布维尔法律词典（英语：Bouvier's Law Dictionary）》[217]中对“作乱”和“反叛”的定义，都表明“作乱”和“反叛”在法律上是不同的[218][219]。
在国会就宪法第十四修正案进行辩论期间，西弗吉尼亚州参议员彼得·G·范温克尔（英语：Peter G. Van Winkle）在提及第三款时表示：“这将写入我们的宪法，并将适用于未来的叛乱以及现在的叛乱；我希望这一点能够得到明确的理解[226][227][228]。”而林奇、弗拉霍普拉斯和格雷伯则认为，虽然第三款的早期草案将其适用范围限制在南北战争时期，但由于担心前邦联成员在战后参与作乱或反叛，最终的措辞被扩大到追溯和前瞻性地包括作乱或反叛[229][230][231]。相反，拉什认为，从第三款的起草历史来看，关于该条款是打算未来适用还是仅适用于南北战争的证据并不充分，丹尼尔·克拉克提出的第三款提案省略了对未来叛乱的提及，而公众对第三款的理解（根据当时的报纸报道以及国会议员和州长在1866年中期选举期间的公开评论）是，第三款仅适用于南北战争[232]。
与鲍德和保尔森的观点一致[198]，国会研究处指出，美国宪法第三条第三款的叛国条款规定“叛国罪仅包括对美国发动战争，或依附其敌人，给予他们援助和安慰”，并使用第三款的措辞来描述符合取消资格条件的罪行[196][59]。国会研究处之后引用了最高法院在1945年克莱默诉美国案（英语：Cramer v. United States）和1947年豪普特诉美国案中的裁决，指出与某人简单的交往不足以构成“给予援助或安慰”，但即使提供相对较少的物质支持的行为也符合条件[241][242][243]。林奇指出，最高法院在克莱默诉美国案中表示“没有任何证据表明……援助和安慰的范围比其公认且既定的含义更窄”，这一点由《1351年叛逆法令》确立[244][245]。国会研究处以及鲍德和保尔森援引了“普利策案”的结论，认为美利坚联盟国公民虽然不是外国人，但根据战争法，他们符合“敌人”的资格[241]。鲍德和保尔森援引了最高法院在“普利策案”中的陈述：“这仍然是一场内战，交战各方处于敌对状态，因为一方可能称之为‘叛乱’，而叛乱分子可能被视为叛徒[註 23][246][247]。”
布莱克曼和蒂尔曼辩称，由于参与暴动或叛乱与援助或安慰敌人在宪法第三款的文本上是截然不同的，因此鲍德和保尔森将参与暴动或叛乱与援助或安慰敌人混为一谈，实际上将“援助或安慰暴动”定为刑事犯罪，而这在第三款的文本中并未出现[267]。相反，国会研究处指出，虽然根据《美国法典》第18卷第2383条或第2381条分别对暴动或叛国罪进行刑事定罪，大概足以确定特定个人是否根据第三款被取消资格[註 27][269]，但就第三款取消资格而言，“暴动”和“叛乱”的定义不一定受法规限制[270]。同样地，林奇认为，根据第2383条定罪作为宪法第三款取消资格的必要条件并不是一个模范标准，因为没有明显的案例表明被告曾根据第2383条被定罪，而该法规也不包括联邦承认的针对州政府的叛乱或起义[271]。第2383条是《第二没收法》第二条和第三条的编纂版本，该版本在1874年的《美国修订法规（英语：Revised Statutes of the United States）》[272]、1909年随后的联邦刑法编纂[273]中给予保留，并最终在1948年的《美国法典》[274]中给予保留，但该条仅适用于“合众国下的职务”（即联邦职务）的取消资格，而第三条也适用于州公职的取消资格[268][註 28]。
同样，第2381条是《第二次没收法案》第一条和第三条以及最终通过同一法典得以保留的《1790年刑事法（英语：Crimes Act of 1790）》第一条的法典化版本，并且该条也仅适用于取消联邦公职资格，而不适用于取消州公职资格[註 29][276]。在1807年博尔曼案中，最高法院指出：“如果一群人实际上是为了以武力实现叛国目的而集结，则所有参与其中的人，无论其参与程度多么微小，或距离行动现场多么遥远，并且实际上参与了整个阴谋，都应被视为叛徒”[註 30][277]。格雷伯援引了博尔曼案、美国诉伯尔案、普雷泽案[278]、1795年美国诉维戈尔案[279]、1795年美国诉米切尔案[280]以及1864年瓦兰迪格姆案[281]，并研究了宪法第十四修正案批准之前联邦和州关于叛乱和叛国罪的判例法，认为“叛乱”和“叛国罪”的原始公共含义被理解为任何为了公共目的以武力抵抗联邦法律的集会[282]，而“参与”叛乱被广泛理解为包括扮演任何试图阻碍联邦法律执行的角色[283]。在1969年布兰登伯格诉俄亥俄州案中，最高法院确立了一项两部分的测试来判定言论是否构成煽动，且该言论符合以下条件，则不受美国宪法第一修正案的保护：
虽然最高法院在1867年的加兰案（英语：Ex parte Garland）中裁定，总统的完全赦免“可解除惩罚，消除罪责……如同罪犯从未犯过罪行……并且在定罪前获得赦免……可避免在定罪后附加任何惩罚和丧失行为能力”[註 43][332]，但最高法院随后在1915年的伯迪克诉美国案（英语：Burdick v. United States）中裁定，赦免“带有罪责推定；接受赦免则意味着供认罪责”[333][334]。同样，在格里芬案中，蔡斯和安德伍德对第三款是否自行执行持有不同意见，蔡斯认为第三款不能自动执行，而安德伍德则认为可以[335]。林奇和格雷伯指出，休·怀特·谢菲的律师承认了第三款中关于取消资格的论点，但拒绝了蔡斯所同意的对第三款的“ex proprio vigore”解释（即未经正当程序的取消资格）[336][337]。在国会就第三款进行辩论期间，宾夕法尼亚州众议员撒迪厄斯·史蒂文斯表示：“如果这项修正案获得通过，就必须立法执行它的许多部分……它不会自行生效，但一旦成为法律，国会将在下届会议上立法执行，无论是在总统选举中还是在所有其他我们有权做的选举中[註 44][338][339]。”史蒂文斯在众议院最后一次辩论中的讲话中重申“除了制定适当的授权法案外，我看不到任何安全的希望[註 45][193][194]。”
同样，历史学家戴维·T·贝托指出，尽管尤金·维克多·德布斯曾担任印第安纳州众议院议员，后来根据《1918年煽动叛乱法（英语：Sedition Act of 1918）》被定罪，但德布斯仍然在至少40个州的选票上出现，成为1920年总统选举中的社会党总统候选人[357][358]。同样与伯杰案相反，在1919年的德布斯诉美国案中，最高法院维持了对德布斯的定罪[359][358]。相反，鲍德和保尔森认为，虽然宪法确实存在执行问题，但其执行问题与第3条是否具有自动执行力的问题并不矛盾，因为“……宪法的意义高于一切。官员必须执行宪法，因为它是法律；认为只有他们决定执行宪法，宪法才成为法律是错误的[註 46][360]。”布莱克曼和蒂尔曼援引了1873年屠宰场案[361]、1873年布拉德韦尔诉伊利诺伊州案（1873年）[362]、1876年美国诉克鲁克香克案（1876年）[363]、1896年普莱西诉弗格森案（1896年）[364]、1908年杨案[365]以及1971年比文斯诉六名不明代理人案来论证，第十四修正案只有在存在联邦执法立法时，申请人可以根据该条或作为针对强制执行的诉讼或起诉中的辩护理由[366]。布莱克曼和蒂尔曼则认为，鲍德和保尔森在论证宪法第一条具有自动执行效力时未能解释这种二分法[367][368]。
国会研究处指出，第三款的文字并未明确要求取消资格必须有刑事定罪，重建时期被取消资格的前邦联官员，是被联邦检察官提起的民事诉讼，或被国会根据宪法第一条第五款的选举判决条款拒绝让当选的前邦联候选人进入国会而遭到禁止[65][71]。而林奇则指出，根据宪法第一条第三款，对现任国会议员的挑战将根据第一条第五款的驱逐条款进行[382][71]。最高法院援引1919年众议院驱逐维克多·L·伯杰、南北战争期间因支持邦联而被驱逐的国会议员，以及重建时期根据宪法第三条驱逐当选议员的情况[383]，在鲍威尔诉麦科马克案中裁定，国会只能在宪法规定的资格下驱逐合法当选的议员，并且所引发的争议并非政治问题[384][385]。在起草第十四修正案期间，西弗吉尼亚州参议员韦特曼·T·威利（英语：Waitman T. Willey）表示，第三款规定的取消资格规定如下：
同样，缅因州参议员洛特·M·莫里尔表示“州对犯罪判处的惩罚与州对其未选择授予公职的人施加的、并且有权施加的丧失能力之间存在明显区别”[387]，而密苏里州参议员约翰·B·亨德森（英语：John B. Henderson）则表示，第三款“是规定官员资格的法案，而不是惩罚犯罪的法案……惩罚意味着剥夺生命、自由或财产[註 50][388]。”格雷伯援引莫里尔、亨德森和威利的观点，指出第39届美国国会的大多数议员都将第三款理解为担任公职的资格，而不是对刑事犯罪的惩罚[389]。虽然国会研究处指出，法律学者之间就国会是否有权通过立法，点名列前茅，而这些个人由于宪法第一条第九款的褫夺公权条款而被取消资格，存在争议[233]，但鲍德和保尔森认为，第三款不仅符合该条款的资格，也符合第一条第十款的褫夺公权法案条款、第一条第九款和第十款的溯及既往的法律条款、第五修正案中的正当程序条款以及言论自由条款的资格[252][390]。宪法第五修正案中的正当程序条款规定“未经正当法律程序，任何人不得……被剥夺生命、自由或财产”[註 51][391]。
由于总统选举人条款的“实际解释”已“赋予州立法机构在选举人任命方式或模式方面的全权”[443]，因此，最高法院在1892年麦克弗森诉布莱克案中维持了密歇根州任命总统选举人的选举法，因为“在宪法文本含义存在歧义或疑问的情况下”，“同期和后续的实际解释应具有最大的效力”[444][445]。总统选举人条款规定“各州应按照其立法机构规定的方式，任命一定数量的选举人，其人数应与该州在国会中应有的参议员和众议员总数相等”[註 60][156]，该条款将制定规范总统选举管理的选举法的权力授予州政府，而非联邦政府[446]。在2020年奇亚法洛诉华盛顿州案（英语：Chiafalo v. Washington）中，最高法院一致裁定，虽然总统选举人条款授予州政府的权力并非绝对[447]，但该条款“赋予各州对总统选举人的广泛权力，除非存在其他宪法限制”，并以总统资格条款为例[448][449][301]。
在1986年芒罗诉社会主义工人党案中，最高法院维持华盛顿州大选选票获取法，该法要求第三方候选人在该州的统一初选中获得1%的选票。最高法院重申，此类法律符合宪法，可以“防止选民混乱、选票过度拥挤或出现不重要的候选人”[458]。然而，马里兰州众议员傑米·拉斯金和全国投票权研究所（英语：National Voting Rights Institute）创始人约翰·博尼法兹指出，虽然最高法院在1972年布洛克诉卡特案中承认政府有合法利益阻止“不重要的候选人”进入选票，但法院并未设立任何“不重要的候选人”的资格标准，仅裁定以财富和筹款能力作为标准将“排除合法和不重要的候选人”[459][460]。最高法院在1974年的鲁宾诉帕尼什案中重申，将缴纳申请费作为获取选票条件的做法违宪[461]；而在1968年的威廉姆斯诉罗兹案和1983年的安德森诉塞莱布雷泽案中，最高法院推翻了俄亥俄州的两项选票获取法，理由是这些法律歧视第三方和独立候选人，违反了宪法第一修正案和平等保护条款赋予的结社自由权[447][457][462][463]。
最高法院在 1995 年的U.S. Term Limits公司诉桑顿案中重申了其在鲍威尔诉麦科马克案中的判决，并澄清说，规范选票获取和选举管理的州选举法并不构成对当选公职的额外资格要求，因为此类法律“规范选举程序，并且不会……使某一类潜在候选人丧失资格”U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514（英语：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 514）U.S.779, 834–835 (1995)</ref>[385]。但最高法院援引宪法第二十二修正案，认为任期限制构成一项资格要求，因为“任期限制……毫无疑问限制了选民投票给他们希望投票的人的能力”[476]。最高法院还表示，“制宪者将国会选举条款理解为颁布程序性规定的权力，而不是……逃避重要宪法限制的权力来源”[477]。大法官克拉伦斯·托马斯在反对意见中辩称，州政府保留为州议员设定任期限制的权力，同时规定，如果“联邦宪法……剥夺了各州颁布此类措施的权力”[478]，则州选举法可能无效，并且各州“没有保留权力确定总统职位的资格……因为……任何州都不能为另一个州立法”[479][480]。
托马斯在奇亚法洛诉华盛顿案的协同意见中重申了反对意见的推理[449]，但托马斯在其协同意见的第二部分指出，“在宪法没有取消或限制总统选举人权的范围内，与总统选举人有关的权力属于各州”，并援引威廉姆斯诉罗德案，指出各州不能“以违反宪法明确规定的方式”对总统选举人行使权力[481][482]。除了在奇亚法洛诉华盛顿案中赞同多数意见外，大法官尼尔·戈萨奇在协同意见的第二部分也赞同托马斯的观点[449][483]。林奇援引了最高法院在“U.S. Term Limits公司诉桑顿案”中的意见，认为州政府有义务执行联邦公职的宪法资格要求，尽管他承认各州的选票获取法律各不相同[484]。林奇指出，许多州允许根据宪法资格对总统和副总统候选人进行正式挑战，而且各州可以禁止总统选举人投票给不符合宪法资格的候选人[485]。在总结法律学者关于宪法第二十二修正案是否因第十二修正案规定的副总统资格要求而对担任总统和副总统施加限制的争论时[121]，国会研究处指出，第二十二修正案的案文明确规定至少“任何人不得当选总统超过两次”[486][487]。
宪法第二十修正案第一款将国会任期的截止日期改为1月3日，总统和副总统任期的截止日期改为1月20日，第二款将国会会期开始日期从第一条第四款国会会期条款规定的12月第一个星期一改为1月3日[510][511]。因此，应急选举现在由即将举行的国会会期而不是跛脚鸭会期进行[512]。第二十修正案第三款规定，如果在就职日之前未选出当选总统或未能达到任职资格，则当选副总统（英语：Vice President-elect of the United States）将代理总统职务，直至选出总统；如果众议院举行的应急选举未能在就职日之前选出总统，或者选举团试图选出一位在宪法上不符合任职资格的总统，并且副总统也未当选，或者当选副总统在就职日之前也未能取得资格，则国会有权宣布谁将担任总统，或者制定选举程序，在总统或副总统取得资格之前选出代理总统[105][513][514]。根据宪法第二十修正案第三款，只有在当选总统在就职日之前去世的情况下，当选副总统才能成为总统[515][105][516][514]。
2023年11月17日，科罗拉多州地方法院驳回科罗拉多州两党选民提起的诉讼，该诉讼旨在禁止特朗普参加该州总统初选和后续选举[566]。该法院首次就宪法第十四修正案第三款是否适用于特朗普作出了实质性裁决[567]。法院裁定，国会山骚乱构成第三款所定义的“叛乱”，特朗普确实通过煽动袭击“参与”了叛乱（超出宪法第一修正案的保护范围），但由于美国总统不是美国官员，因此特朗普没有按照第三款的要求“事先宣誓……作为美国官员”，不适用本条款[526][568]。法院命令科罗拉多州务卿（英语：Colorado Secretary of State）将特朗普的名字列入该州总统初选选票上[569]。
2024年1月4日，选民史蒂文·丹尼尔·安德森、查尔斯·J·霍利、杰克·L·希克曼、拉尔夫·E·辛特龙和达里尔·P·贝克向伊利诺伊州选举委员会（英语：Illinois State Board of Elections）提交一份请愿书，质疑特朗普根据宪法第十四修正案第三款获得初选和普选选票的资格[580][581]。1月26日，选举委员会举行听证会[582]。会上，听证官建议将此案交由法院而非选举委员会裁决，但如果由选举委员会裁决此案，则应认定特朗普参与了叛乱，应将其排除在伊利诺伊州初选选票之外[583]。1月30日，选举委员会一致裁定，因缺乏管辖权而驳回此案，特朗普仍在选票上保留[584]。同日，原告向库克县伊利诺伊州巡回法院提起上诉[585]，案件名称为“安德森诉特朗普案”。
在密歇根州审理的特朗普诉本森案中，2023年11月14日，密歇根州索赔法院（英语：Michigan Court of Claims）法官詹姆斯·罗伯特·雷德福德驳回试图禁止特朗普参加密歇根州共和党初选和党团会议的诉讼。雷德福德裁定，无论是州法院还是密歇根州务卿都无权裁定特朗普是否根据第十四修正案被取消资格，并指出取消资格是一个应由国会决定的政治问题，如果国会取消特朗普的资格，宪法第二十修正案提供了补救措施，即由副总统代行总统职务[525][592]。他裁定，特朗普是否有资格参加共和党初选“提出了一个目前无法通过司法途径解决的政治问题”，并发现选举问题“目前尚未成熟，无法裁决”[593]。
^原文："The judicial Power [of the Supreme Court and such inferior courts the Congress ordains and establishes] shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution... [and] the Laws of the United States".
^原文：In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
^原条文：“总统因叛国罪、受贿罪或其他针对美国的重罪和轻罪，经众议院弹劾，并经参议院定罪，应被免职；副总统和合众国其他文职官员因上述弹劾和定罪，应被免职”"[The President] shall be removed from his office on impeachment by the House of representatives, and conviction by the Senate, for treason or bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors against the United States; the Vice President and other civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on impeachment and conviction as aforesaid;"
^原文：no ... Person holding an Office ... under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector
^原文："A position to which is delegated by legal authority a portion of the sovereign powers of the federal government and that is 'continuing' is a federal office... [and a] person who would hold such a position must be ... an 'Officer of the United States'"
^原文："[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors... and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for... but the Congress may ... vest the Appointment of ... inferior Officers... in the President alone"
^原文："[The President] ... shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."
^原文："The Senators and Representatives before mentioned... and all executive and judicial Officers... of the United States... shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution
^原文："No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under ... the United States ... and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."
^原文："no Person holding any Office ... under [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
^原文："The third section has been wholly changed by substituting the ineligibility of certain high officers for the disenfranchisement of all rebels until 1870. This I cannot look upon as an improvement. ... In my judgment it endangers the government of the country, both State and national; and may give the next Congress and President to the reconstructed rebels."
^原文："provide for calling forth the Militia to, execute the Laws of the Union, [and] suppress Insurrections"
^原文：The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
^原文："This greatest of civil wars was not gradually developed by popular commotion, tumultuous assemblies, or local unorganized insurrections... [but] sprung forth suddenly ... in the full panoply of war. The President was bound to meet it in the shape it presented itself, without waiting for Congress to baptize it with a name"
^"The authority to decide whether the exigencies contemplated" under the Militia Clause and the Militia Act of 1795 "have arisen, is exclusively vested in the President, and his decision is conclusive upon all other persons"
^原文：I, A. B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have never voluntarily borne arms against the United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility thereto; that I have neither sought nor accepted nor attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatever, under any authority or pretended authority in hostility to the United States; that I have not yielded a voluntary support to any pretended government, authority, power or constitution within the United States, hostile or inimical thereto. And I do further swear (or affirm) that, to the best of my knowledge and ability, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.
^原文：[Section 2]. ... [I]f any person shall hereafter incite, set on foot, assist, or engage in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States, or the laws thereof, or shall give aid or comfort thereto, or shall engage in, or give aid and comfort to, any such existing rebellion or insurrection, and be convicted thereof, such person shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars, and by the liberation of all his slaves, if any he have; or by both of said punishments, at the discretion of the court. [Section 3]. ... [E]very person guilty of ... the offences described in this act shall be forever incapable and disqualified to hold any office under the United States.
^原文："These rebels and insurrectionists were fighting deeply unjust laws, but there is no question that they committed many acts of insurrection nonetheless. Rebellion for a good cause is still rebellion."
^原文："Legal authorities from the framing to Reconstruction insisted that insurrection or treason trials do not turn on the justice of any complaint against the laws. ... That the motive is moral rather than pecuniary is one factor that converts a riot into an insurrection."[205]
^原文："If the public record is accurate, the case is not even close. [Donald Trump] is no longer eligible to the office of [the] Presidency, or any other state or federal office covered by the Constitution."
^原文："It is not the less a civil war, with belligerent parties in hostile array, because it may be called an 'insurrection' by one side, and the insurgents be considered as rebels or traitors."
^原文：Th[e] exercise of judicial discretion, in determining between two contradictory laws, is exemplified in a familiar instance. It not uncommonly happens, that there are two statutes existing at one time, clashing in whole or in part with each other, and neither of them containing any repealing clause or expression. In such a case, it is the province of the courts to liquidate and fix their meaning and operation. So far as they can, by any fair construction, be reconciled to each other, reason and law conspire to dictate that this should be done; where this is impracticable, it becomes a matter of necessity to give effect to one, in exclusion of the other. The rule which has obtained in the courts for determining their relative validity is, that the last in order of time shall be preferred to the first. But this is a mere rule of construction, not derived from any positive law, but from the nature and reason of the thing. It is a rule not enjoined upon the courts by legislative provision, but adopted by themselves, as consonant to truth and propriety, for the direction of their conduct as interpreters of the law. They thought it reasonable, that between the interfering acts of an EQUAL authority, that which was the last indication of its will should have the preference
^原文："It is perfectly true that the entire Fourteenth Amendment was the child of the Civil War... [but it] is equally true, however, that its provisions are for all time... It is inconceivable that the House of Representatives, which without such an express provision in the Constitution repeatedly asserted its right to exclude Members-elect for disloyalty, should ignore this plain prohibition which has been contained in the fundamental law of the Nation for more than half a century."
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.[268] 译文：任何人煽动、发起、协助或参与任何反对美国权威或美国法律的叛乱或起义，或为其提供援助或安慰，均应根据本法被处以罚款或不超过十年的监禁，或两者并处；并且不得担任美国政府的任何公职。
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.[269] 译文：
^原文："if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors"
^原文："This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
^条文如下：No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.（译文：凡年龄不满二十五岁，成为合众国公民不满七年，在一州当选时不是该州居民者，不得担任众议员。）[133]
^条文如下：No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.（译文：凡年龄不满30岁，成为合众国公民不满9年，在一州当选时不是该州居民者，不得担任参议员。）[70]
^条文如下：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.（译文：无论何人，除生为合众国公民或在宪法采用时已是合众国公民者外，不得当选为总统；凡年龄不满35岁、在合众国境内居住不满14年者，也不得当选为总统。）[301]
^第二十二修正案第一款节选：No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.（译文：无论何人，当选担任总统职务不得超过两次；无论何人，在他人当选总统任期内担任总统职务或代理总统超过两年，不得当选担任总统职务超过一次。）
^条文如下：The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.（译文：众议院……独自拥有弹劾权。）[133]
^条文如下：The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.（译文：参议院独自拥有审判一切弹劾案的权力。为此目的而开庭时，全体参议员须宣誓或作代誓宣言。合众国总统受审时，首席大法官主持审判。无论何人，非经出席参议员三分之二的同意，不得被定罪。）[70]
^条文如下：Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.（译文：弹劾案的判决，不得超出免职和剥夺担任和享有合众国属下有荣誉、有责任或有薪金的任何职务的资格。但被定罪的人，仍可依法受起诉、审判、判决和惩罚。）[70]
^条文如下：The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.（译文：总统、副总统和合众国的所有文职官员，因叛国、贿赂或其他重罪和轻罪而受弹劾并被定罪时，应予免职。）[31]
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.[59]
^第三条第二款规定：Trial of all Crimes... shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.（译文：一切犯罪由陪审团审判；此种审判应在犯罪发生的州内举行；但如犯罪不发生在任何一州之内，审判应在国会以法律规定的一个或几个地点举行）[59]
^原文：The President ... shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States.
^原文："releases the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt... as if [the offender] had never committed the offence... [and if] granted before conviction... prevents any of the penalties and disabilities... upon conviction from attaching"
^原文："[I]f this amendment prevails, you must legislate to carry out many parts of it. ... It will not execute itself, but as soon as it becomes a law, Congress at the next session will legislate to carry it out both in reference to the presidential and all other elections as we have a right to do."
^原文："I see no hope of safety [except] in the prescription of proper enabling acts"
^原文："...the meaning of the Constitution comes first. Officials must enforce the Constitution because it is law; it is wrong to think that it only becomes law if they decide to enforce it."
^原文："the [14th Amendment] is undoubtedly self-executing, without any ancillary legislation, so far as its terms are applicable to any existing state of circumstances."
^原文：not...penal in its character, it is precautionary. It looks not to the past, but it has reference, as I understand it, wholly to the future. It is a measure of self-defense. It is designed to prevent a repetition of treason by these men, and being a permanent provision of the Constitution, it is intended to operate as a preventive of treason hereafter by holding out to the people of the United States that such will the penalty of the offense if they dare commit it. It is therefore not a measure of punishment, but a measure of self-defense.
^原文："is an act fixing the qualifications of officers and not an act for the punishment of crime. ... [P]unishment means to take away life, liberty, or property."
^原文："No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
^原文："No person... shall... be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb"
^原文："Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification... but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
^原文："Would it be proper that the persons who had disposed [impeached officials of their] fame... in one trial, should, in another trial, for the same offense, be also the disposers of [their] life and ... fortune? Would there not be the greatest reason to apprehend, that error, in the first sentence, would be the parent of error in the second sentence? ... [By] making the same persons judges in both cases, [impeached officials] would... be deprived of the double security intended them by a double trial."
^原文：... whenever any person shall hold office, except as a member of Congress or of some State legislature, contrary to the provisions of [Section 3 of the 14th Amendment], it shall be the duty of the district attorney of the United States for the district in which such person shall hold office, as aforesaid, to proceed against such person, by writ of quo warranto, returnable to the circuit or district court of the United States in such district, and to prosecute the same to the removal of such person from office...
^原文："Congress shall have the power ... To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District ... as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States"
^原文："The principal rationale for affording Presidents immunity from damages actions based on their official acts... provides no support for an immunity for unofficial conduct."
^原文："it is settled that the Judiciary may severely burden the Executive Branch by reviewing the legality of the President's official conduct, and may direct appropriate process to the President himself. It must follow that the federal courts have power to determine the legality of the President's unofficial conduct."
^原文："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"
^原文："the States have evolved comprehensive, and in many respects complex, election codes regulating in most substantial ways, with respect to both federal and state elections, the time, place, and manner of holding primary and general elections... and the selection and qualification of candidates"
^原文："State has an interest, if not a duty, to protect the integrity of its political processes from frivolous or fraudulent candidacies."
^原文："... whether the 14th Amendment applies, I'll let the court make that decision. But he certainly supported an insurrection."
^原文："I do not believe Donald Trump should be prevented from being president of the United States, by any court; I think he should be prevented from being the president of the United States by the voters of this country"
^原文："the last thing we want is judges telling us who can and can't be on the ballot"
^Tillman, Seth Barrett; Blackman, Josh. Officers and Offices of the Constitution Part IV: The 'Office ... under the United States' Drafting Convention. S. Tex. L. Rev. 2023, 62 (4) （英语）.
^In Senate: June 4, 1866: Reconstruction. 39th United States Congress. Congressional Globe: 2941. 1866-06-04 [2024-02-01]. （原始内容存档于2024-02-02） –通过The Library of Congress （英语）.
^In Senate: May 10, 1866: Reconstruction. 39th United States Congress. Congressional Globe: 2544. 1866-05-10 [2024-02-07]. （原始内容存档于2024-02-08） –通过The Library of Congress （英语）.
^In Senate: May 31, 1866: Reconstruction. 39th United States Congress. Congressional Globe: 2918. May 31, 1866 [February 1, 2024]. （原始内容存档于February 2, 2024） –通过The Library of Congress （英语）.
^In Senate: May 31, 1866: Reconstruction. 39th United States Congress. Congressional Globe: 2916. 1866-05-31 [2024-02-01]. （原始内容存档于2024-02-02） –通过The Library of Congress （英语）.
^In Senate: June 8, 1866: Reconstruction. 39th United States Congress. Congressional Globe: 3036. 1866-06-08 [2024-02-01]. （原始内容存档于2024-02-04） –通过The Library of Congress （英语）.
^Raskin, Jamin; Bonifaz, John. The Constitutional Imperative and Practical Superiority of Democratically Financed Elections. Columbia Law Review (Columbia Law Review Association). 1994, 94 (4): 1169. JSTOR 1123281. doi:10.2307/1123281.
Blackman, Josh; Tillman, Seth Barrett. Sweeping and Forcing the President into Section 3: A Response to William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen. Texas Review of Law and Politics (University of Texas School of Law). 2023-09-12, 28. S2CID 262183775. doi:10.2139/ssrn.4568771.
Baude, William; Paulsen, Michael Stokes. The Sweep and Force of Section Three. University of Pennsylvania Law Review (University of Pennsylvania Law School). 2023-08-14 [2023-12-02].
.jpg)
