CENTER FOR ETHICS AND THE RULE OF LAW​

The question of constitutional interpretation in Trump ballot rulings

In his latest for TIME, CERL Affiliated Faculty Kermit Roosevelt discusses what the debate over Trump’s eligibility to run for office in 2024 reveals about today’s constitutional discourse. Originalist arguments are not far off from the living Constitution line, argues Prof. Roosevelt. Both philosophies of constitutional interpretation involve policy decisions.

Kermit Roosevelt is the David Berger Professor for the Administration of Justice at Penn Carey Law School. He is also a member of CERL’s Affiliated Faculty. Read his bio here.

The views expressed here are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of any organization or university.

Mailing List

Submissions

Submissions to The Rule of Law Post. Please refer to CERL’s submission guidelines for additional details on the blog post format. Should your submission be accepted, we ask that you please complete the Agreement to Transfer Copyright.

Please upload text in one document under 6 mb. Preferred format as a simple text file (.txt).

Share The question of constitutional interpretation in Trump ballot rulings on:

LinkedIn
Twitter
Facebook
Reddit
Email
Print
The question of constitutional interpretation in Trump ballot rulings