The following podcast contains advertising.

To access an ad-free version of the Lawfair Podcast,

become a material supporter of Lawfair at Patreon.com slash Lawfair. That's Patreon.com

slash Lawfair. Also check out Lawfair's other podcast offerings, rational security, chatter, lawfare no bull, and the aftermath.

Attention to all passengers. You can now book your train tickets on Uber and get 10% back in

Uber credits to spend on your next train journey.

So no excuses not to visit your in-laws this Christmas.

Trains, now on Uber.

T's and C's apply.

Check the Uber app. If you are saying today a candidate is not qualified, he could be qualified in a few months or in a year if Congress acts and makes him qualified.

And that just kind of changes the dynamics of the factual universe you're looking at.

And again to this notion that Congress, one is the question of self-execution.

But another is a question of the ability to lift the disability and whether or not that sort of weighs into how courts sort of view this or treat this going forward is something inappropriate for them.

I'm Alan Rosenstein, associate professor of law at the University of Minnesota and Senior Editor at Lawfair, and this is the Lawfair podcast for November 24, 2003.

In the past few weeks, there have been several notable developments in lawsuits seeking to disqualify Donald Trump from the 2024 election under section 3 of the 40th amendment.

The Minnesota Supreme Court dismissed a case against Trump but invited the petitioners to refile once Trump won the GOP nomination.

A court in Michigan rejected a challenge to Trump's eligibility on the grounds that Congress, not the court, should ultimately decide.

And most recently, a Colorado trial judge that Congress, not the court, should ultimately decide.

And most recently, a Colorado trial judge held that,

although Trump did engage an insurrection before and during January 6th,

Section 3 does not apply to presidents.

As these and other cases make their way through the courts

...