Court arguments on blocking Trump from the presidential ballot under the ‘insurrection’ clause begin

girlfreddy@lemmy.ca to News@lemmy.world – 331 points – Court arguments on blocking Trump from the presidential ballot under the ‘insurrection’ clause begin
apnews.com

A weeklong hearing on one lawsuit to bar Trump from the ballot in Colorado begins Monday, while on Thursday oral arguments are scheduled before the Minnesota Supreme Court on an effort to kick the Republican former president off the ballot in that state.

Whether the judges keep Trump on the ballot or boot him, their rulings are likely to be swiftly appealed, eventually to the U.S. Supreme Court. The nation’s highest court has never ruled on the Civil War-era provision in the 14th Amendment that prohibits those who swore an oath to uphold the constitution and then “engaged in insurrection” against it from holding higher office.

24

You are viewing a single comment
View all commentsShow the parent comment

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
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.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?507774-1/president-trump-video-statement-capitol-protesters

"We love you. You're very special."

Could still say he was not convicted of giving aid or comfort. Seems obvious he did, but without a trial not sure it would count. Although that would be an interesting trial as they track down the funding of these groups and how they are interconnected. Probably reveal some interesting players behind the scenes.

Conviction is not a prerequisite.

It doesn’t explicitly require one, but that’s what the Supreme Court could argue to strike it down. While you and I can say it’s obvious based on what happened, I’d rather have a conviction to take someone off the ballot, otherwise it would be exploitable.

There is precedent. Many Confederates were excluded from holding office, even removed from office, based on 14AS3, without convictions of any kind.

It is only a relevant precedent if it was challenged and brought to the Supreme Court. Otherwise, it is merely untested.