Transcript for Breaking down Day 4 of impeachment arguments
Cardozo law professor Deborah pearl Stein thank you so much for your time tonight professor at the former president's legal team argued it link today that president Trump's speech January 6 was protected free speech under the First Amendment. Do you feel that they may that Lee location your mind. I'll indeed legal cases interestingly read chanting citing lawyers on both sides of the I'll that is to say I'm done notions bash. Full speech is protected by the First Amendment even in best speech of the president who has a constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed each. Me is a constitutional argument that's never really been made before. Om and you have prominent lawyers both Democrats and Republicans. Who have said it's not really supported by that constitution. Just as the Supreme Court has long stay at which new can be prosecuted if you yell fire in a crowded theater. If you are actually actively endangering people I'm that same standard atom bomb applies to the president budding the president has a higher duty then most Americans and all Americans to as the constitution provides teacher at the lowest faithfully executed each and even he had been the fire chief in that circumstance. She would have been fired he would have lost his job. And this proceeding is not about depriving the president of his liberty it's not about to brighten the president of any preparation it's simply about whether or not he deserves to hold the job or aid job of public trust and that's a really quite different. Question from their question that the First Amendment in that criminal context is designed to protect us the senate does convey there's been a lot of discussion about barring the former president from future office majority leader Schumer has not ruled out invoking the fourteenth amendment has that processed and used a Ford is that something that could happen really under the constitution. So 63 the fourteenth amendment does say. And was. Adopted immediately after the civil war in it does say that goes to have carried out an insurrection against the government of the United States she. Can be barred from holding an office of public trust in the future. It was used in the context of this civil war to go after the insurrection is to go after the southern. Rebels to prevent them from taking part in their new federal congress after the war. It has not been used enroll in the modern era in this way so there is a significant open constitutional question. If it can be applied in this setting if so how. What are two ways in which it might. Actually eventually come up whether or not ash congress. Attempts to invoke it now. He's even the president the former president ever does try to run for office again and get his name on the ballot. You may well see legal claims that say. He should be barred from running again pursuant to the fourteenth amendment now whether or not that six seats either in vote in court or. By congress in the first instance. It is something that. That we've never basic something that the courts have never decided. The forward and it'll be interesting because on that night senator McConnell called it a failed. Insurrection so still a matter I guess of semantics and by definition if it wasn't an insurrection or not professor Palestine we thank you so much for your time. Thank you.
This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.