Noah Bookbinder Wikipedia, Wiki, Biography, Parents, Bio, Age, Wife
Noah Bookbinder Wikipedia, Wiki, Biography, Parents, Bio, Age, Wife -: Formerly, Noah worked as a federal prosecutor. He is currently well-known as the president of CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington). Noah formerly held the positions of chief counsel for criminal justice and corruption prosecutor.
Noah Bookbinder Bio
|Age||40 – 50 years old|
|Date Of Birth||Not Known|
Noah Bookbinder Measurement
|Height||5 Feet 10 Inch|
Noah Bookbinder Educational Qualifications
|School||Stanford Law School|
|College or University||Yale University|
|Educational Degree||Bachelor’s Degree in Arts|
Noah Bookbinder Family
|Brother / Sister||Not Known|
Noah Bookbinder Marital Status
|Suppose Name||Not Known|
Noah Bookbinder Net Worth
|Net Worth in Dollars||$300,000|
Noah Bookbinder Social Media Accounts
Noah Bookbinder Career
Noah’s career started out in a basic way. After getting his diploma, he started working as a clerk for the United States District Court. He finally started climbing the success ladder. He was appointed to represent the US Department of Justice in court. His diligence and skill earned him a position as counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee of the United States.
Noah spent a brief time teaching at George Washington University. After a while, he joined CREW, where in 2021 he eventually attained the title of president and CEO.
Noah Bookbinder News
Donald Trump, the previous president, is unqualified to serve as president in accordance with a clause in the Constitution that prevents those who participated in rebellion from holding the position, according to two eminent conservative legal professors.
According to The New York Times, professors Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas and William Baude of the University of Chicago—both members of the conservative Federalist Society—researched the issue for more than a year before detailing their conclusions in an article that will appear in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review the following year.
According to Baude, “When we first started out, neither of us knew the answer.” “People were discussing this Constitutional clause. Being constitutional specialists, we believed that this was a crucial constitutional issue. We need to determine what is truly going on. We discovered that we had something to add the more we looked into it.
Trump “cannot be president — cannot run for president, cannot be elected president, cannot hold office — unless two-thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct on January 6,” the professors’ conclusion, he added.
A legal journal article won’t prohibit Trump from running for president, but it might encourage legal actions asserting that the U.S. Constitution forbids him from holding office. According to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars anyone who took an oath to support the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or “gave aid or comfort” to insurrectionists, a New Mexico judge last year removed a county commissioner, Couy Gryphon. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which intends to file a similar case in an effort to bar Trump, requested the decision in response to their lawsuit.
The Supreme Court might wish to hear and consider this case because it presents a crucial constitutional question, according to Paulsen, who spoke to the Times.
Executive director of CREW Noah Bookbinder clarified that being disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is “not a punishment.”
He tweeted, “The constitution lays out requirements for the good of our republic.” Donald Trump disqualified himself from being president when he incited an uprising, just like a 30-year-old would.
Similar to Section 2, Section 3 is described in the article as “self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office.”
According to the essay, there is “abundant evidence” that Trump participated in an uprising. It points to his attempts to rig election results by intimidation and threats, as well as his calls for his supporters to demonstrate in front of the Capitol.
The piece stated that “it is without a doubt accurate to say that Trump ‘engaged in’ the Jan. 6 insurrection through both his actions and his inaction.”
The Federalist Society’s founder and law professor Steven Calabresi, who authored the 126-page article, dubbed it a “tour de force.”
However, James Bopp Jr., a lawyer who defended Congressmen whose candidatures were contested under the clause, told the Times that the experts “have adopted a ridiculously broad view.”
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., was successfully defended by Bopp in a case where a judge determined that she had not assisted or supported the attacks on January 6 after taking the oath of office on January 3. A crucial argument in his defense of Rep. Madison Cawthorn, however, was rejected by a federal appeals court, even though the matter was moot after he lost the 2022 primary.
According to the article, Section 3’s “full legal consequences” “have not been appreciated or enforced.”
According to the text, “it can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications.”
The abstract of the paper stated that “Section Three includes a wide spectrum of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many examples of indirect participation or support as “aid or comfort.” It includes the presidency among a wide range of past offices. And specifically, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump and maybe a large number of others due to their involvement in the effort to rig the 2020 presidential election.
Election officials must take action, Calabresi told the Times.
“Trump is ineligible to be on the ballot, and each of the 50 state secretaries of state has an obligation to print ballots without his name on them,” he told the site, adding that they risk legal action if they do not comply.
Trump is also being prosecuted for his involvement in the post-election plan, but Section 3 and that case cover “completely separate questions,” according to Baude, who told the Times.
“The question of whether Donald Trump should go to jail is entrusted to the criminal process,” he declared. “No jury has been asked the question of whether he should be permitted to take the constitutional oath and be given constitutional power again.”
Also Read :