╌>

Liberal groups seek to use the Constitution's insurrection clause to block Trump from 2024 ballots

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  nerm-l  •  10 months ago  •  55 comments

By:   NICHOLAS RICCARDI (AP News)

Liberal groups seek to use the Constitution's insurrection clause to block Trump from 2024 ballots
Liberal groups are trying to end Donald Trump's attempt to return to the White House by arguing he's ineligible to be president after trying to overturn the 2020 election.

When in doubt, rig the election.  Apparently liberals don't trust their own propaganda.  Spin any way possible but this is not a rousing endorsement for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.  It looks like Biden has gotten liberals worried.


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


As former President Donald Trump dominates the Republican presidential primary, some liberal groups and legal experts contend that a rarely used clause of the Constitution prevents him from being president after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The 14th Amendment bars from office anyone who once took an oath to uphold the Constitution but then "engaged" in "insurrection or rebellion" against it. A growing number of legal scholars say the post-Civil War clause applies to Trump after his role in trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election and encouraging his backers to storm the U.S. Capitol.

Two liberal nonprofits pledge court challenges should states' election officers place Trump on the ballot despite those objections.

The effort is likely to trigger a chain of lawsuits and appeals across several states that ultimately would lead to the U.S. Supreme Court, possibly in the midst of the 2024 primary season. The matter adds even more potential legal chaos to a nomination process already roiled by the front-runner facing four criminal trials.

Now Trump's very ability to run could be litigated as Republicans are scheduled to start choosing their nominee, starting with the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 15.

"There's a very real prospect these cases will be active during the primaries," said Gerard Magliocca, a law professor at Indiana University, warning that there could be different outcomes in different states before the Supreme Court makes a final decision. "Imagine you have an opinion that says he's not eligible and then there's another primary where he's on the ballot."

Though most litigation is unlikely to begin until October, when states begin to set their ballots for the upcoming primary, the issue has gotten a boost from a recently released law review article written by two prominent conservative law professors, William Baude and Michael Paulsen. They concluded that Trump must be barred from the ballot due to the clause in the third section of the 14th Amendment.

That section bars anyone from Congress, the military, and federal and state offices if they previously took an oath to support the Constitution and "have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

In their article, scheduled to be published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Baude and Paulsen said they believe the meaning is clear.

"Taking Section Three seriously means excluding from present or future office those who sought to subvert lawful government authority under the Constitution in the aftermath of the 2020 election," they write.

The issue came up during last week's Republican presidential debate in Milwaukee, when former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson warned that "this is something that could disqualify him under our rules and under the Constitution."

In 2021, the nonprofit Free Speech For People sent letters to the top election official in all 50 states requesting Trump's removal if he were to run again for the presidency. The group's legal director, Ron Fein, noted that after years of silence, officials are beginning to discuss the matter.

"The framers of the 14th Amendment learned the bloody lesson that, once an oath-breaking insurrectionist engages in insurrection, they can't be trusted to return to power," Fein said.

Ahead of the 2022 midterms, the group sued to remove U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene and then-Rep. Madison Cawthorn, both Republicans, from the ballot over their support for the Jan. 6 protest. The judge overseeing Greene's case ruled in her favor, while Cawthorn's case became moot after he was defeated in his primary.

The complex legal issues were highlighted on Wednesday when the Arizona Republic reported that Secretary of State Adrian Fontes said his hands are tied because of a ruling by that state's high court that only Congress can disqualify someone on Arizona's presidential ballot. Fontes, a Democrat, called the ruling "dead, flat wrong" in an interview with the Republic but said he would abide by it.

If Trump appears on the Arizona ballot, those who believe he's not qualified can still sue in federal court to remove him.

Other secretaries of state are warily navigating the legal minefield.

In a radio interview earlier this week, Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, said "there are valid legal arguments being made" for keeping Trump off the ballot and that it's something she is discussing with other secretaries of state, including those in presidential battlegrounds.

Brad Raffensperger, the Republican secretary of state in Georgia who withstood pressure from Trump when he sought to overturn the 2020 results in the state, suggested the issue should be up to voters.

"As Georgia's Secretary of State, I have been clear that voters are smart and deserve the right to decide elections," he said in an emailed statement.

Trump argues that any effort to prevent him from appearing on a state's ballot amounts to "election interference" — the same way he is characterizing the criminal charges filed against him in New York and Atlanta and by federal prosecutors in Washington, D.C., and Florida.

"And I think what's happening is there's really been a backlash against it," Trump told the conservative channel Newsmax.

Indeed, the New Hampshire secretary of state's office was flooded with messages about the issue on Monday, said Anna Sventek, a spokeswoman. Earlier in the day, a conservative personality had falsely claimed the state was about to strike Trump from the ballot.

On Wednesday, a long-shot Republican presidential candidate, John Anthony Castro, of Texas, filed a complaint in a New Hampshire court contending the 14th Amendment barred Trump from that state's ballot.

The eventual, bigger court challenges are expected to draw greater legal fire power. But Michael McConnell, a conservative law professor at Stanford University who is not a Trump supporter, said the case is no slam dunk.

McConnell questions whether the provision even applies to the presidency because it is not one of the offices specifically listed in the 14th Amendment — which instead refers to "elector of president and vice president." He also said it's unclear whether the Jan. 6 attack constitutes an "insurrection" under the law or simply a less legally fraught incident such as a riot.

But McConnell also worries about the political precedent if Trump is ultimately removed from any state ballot.

"It's not just about Trump. Every election where someone says something supportive of a riot that interferes with the enforcement of laws, their opponents are going to run in and try to get them disqualified," he said.

Ratified in 1868, the 14th Amendment helped ensure civil rights for freed slaves — and eventually for all people in the U.S. — but also was used to prevent former Confederate officials from becoming members of Congress and taking over the government they had just rebelled against.

The clause allows Congress to lift the ban, which it did in 1872 as the political will to continue to bar former Confederates dwindled. The provision was almost never used after that. In 1919, Congress refused to seat a socialist in Congress, contending he gave aid and comfort to the country's enemies during World War I. Last year, in the provision's first use since then, a New Mexico judge barred a rural county commissioner who had entered the Capitol on Jan. 6 from office under the clause.

If any state bars Trump from running, his reelection campaign is expected to sue, possibly taking the case directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. If no state bans him, Free Speech For People and another nonprofit, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, would likely challenge his presence on the ballot.

It's critical that the high court settle the issue before the general election, said Edward Foley, a law professor at The Ohio State University. His fear is that if Trump's qualifications are not resolved and he wins, Democrats could try to block his ascension to the White House on Jan. 6, 2025, triggering another democratic crisis.

Those pushing to invoke the amendment agree and say they think the case is clear.

"This isn't a punishment. It's like saying a president needs to be 35 years old and a natural born citizen," said Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "You also need not to have helped organize an uprising against the government."


Red Box Rules

Why are the rules Red?  Why aren't there Blue Box Rules?  Looks like even the rules are rigged against Red to favor Blue.


 

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
1  seeder  Nerm_L    10 months ago

Even a lying, cheating, insurrectionist can beat the liberal's choice.  

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @1    10 months ago

I can't believe anyone would want that traitor to run again much less vote for hm.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
1.1.1  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Tessylo @1.1    10 months ago
I can't believe anyone would want that traitor to run again much less vote for hm.

Yeah, we can see how the news media's court of public opinion (?) works.  Democrats are innocent until proven guilty ten times over.  (Unless they're Al Franken.)  Republicans are guilty, period.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.1    10 months ago

Your last sentence is true, period.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.1.3  cjcold  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.1    10 months ago

Franken just spent too many years at SNL and let their brand of backstage humor get the best of him in politics. He knew it and resigned.

No extreme amount of reprehensible actions blow back on GOPers.

Seems that lying and breaking the law is just fine with RWNJ sycophants.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.4  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @1.1    10 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.1.5  cjcold  replied to  cjcold @1.1.3    10 months ago

Democrats have always sanctioned their own for misdeeds.

Republicans never do. Misdeeds are what the GOP thrive on.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @1.1.4    10 months ago

What an imagination!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.1.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  cjcold @1.1.5    10 months ago

Thank you for the laugh of the day.  

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
2  Jasper2529    10 months ago
It looks like Biden has gotten liberals worried.

Given the results of a recent AP poll, they should be. Over 75% of all Americans don't think he's cognitively capable, and over 70% of Democrats feel the same.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1  Texan1211  replied to  Jasper2529 @2    10 months ago
over 70% of Democrats feel the same.

They may say they feel like that now. But come election time, is there any doubt who they'll vote for?

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
2.1.1  Jasper2529  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1    10 months ago

No. They'll vote for him no matter how often he verbally and physically mumbles and stumbles. He is, however, losing the approval of blacks, hispanics, and educated women.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
2.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Jasper2529 @2.1.1    10 months ago
"He is, however, losing the approval of blacks, hispanics, and educated women."

Yep, about all Biden's got going for him is young females

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
2.1.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.2    10 months ago

Who think grandpa is going to pay for their college loans...............

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
2.1.4  Jasper2529  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.2    10 months ago
about all Biden's got going for him is young females

I actually disagree with this. Another poll shows that he's losing with Gen Z, too. They feel he's "too old".

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.1.5  Sparty On  replied to  Jasper2529 @2.1.1    10 months ago

Which just illustrates how rotted some brains really are.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2  Tessylo  replied to  Jasper2529 @2    10 months ago

We're not the ones who are worried jasper and nerm.

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
2.2.1  Jasper2529  replied to  Tessylo @2.2    10 months ago

Sorry to disappoint you, Tessy, but it will be a cold day in hell before anything about a politician of any party scares me that much.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  Jasper2529 @2.2.1    10 months ago

You appear to be frightened of leftists and their alleged marxism, whatever that is supposed to mean

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
2.2.3  Jasper2529  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.2    10 months ago
You appear to be frightened of leftists and their alleged marxism, whatever that is supposed to mean

Really? Please provide evidence of your claim.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3  Sean Treacy    10 months ago

I still don't get how this is even possible without a Court conviction

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    10 months ago

It's not, but that little fact won't stop the hard core leftist libs from trying with all their might.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
4  Greg Jones    10 months ago

The mostly peaceful right-wing protestors were simply trying to delay a governmental procedure.

What happened on J6 does not fit the definition of an insurrection, or an act of sedition, and the evidence of anything to the contrary is flimsy and contradictive.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
4.1  evilone  replied to  Greg Jones @4    10 months ago
The mostly peaceful right-wing protestors were simply trying to delay a governmental procedure.

And those people mostly got probation and/or some fines.

What happened on J6 does fit the definition of an insurrection...

The Oathkeepers and Proud Boys had their day in court in front of a jury. If they feel it unjust they can appeal. 

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
4.1.1  cjcold  replied to  evilone @4.1    10 months ago

Much like Trump, far right ring fascists don't believe in the reality of video.

Trump said many times "I didn't say that". the video says he did every time.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
4.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  cjcold @4.1.1    10 months ago

What video? 

Gotta link?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  cjcold @4.1.1    10 months ago

I don't think you have ever even met a fascist.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
4.1.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.3    10 months ago

First they have to know and understand the definition of "Fascist".  To date they have shown they don't.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
4.1.5  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.1.4    10 months ago

But is sure is thrown around willy nilly as though it is supposed to show some inkling of intellect.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
4.1.6  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.1.5    10 months ago

They use it like they used the term "racist".  They use it as a supposed slur against anybody or anything that went against what they THINK things should be.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @4    10 months ago

the majority of the indictments and the evidence that we saw with our own eyes is neither flimsy nor contradictory

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
4.3  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Greg Jones @4    10 months ago
The mostly peaceful right-wing protestors were simply trying to delay a governmental procedure.

The protesters delayed a strictly ceremonial, perfunctory governmental proceeding.  We've been told the purpose of the proceeding is to simply rubber stamp the election results; the Senate can't do anything else.  It's comparable to disrupting the Presidential ceremony to pardon turkeys at Thanksgiving.  That's not quite a threat to democracy.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.3.1  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @4.3    10 months ago

You must not have been watching what actually transpired on that day.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.3.2  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @4.3    10 months ago

That's just cuckoo for cocoa puffs there nerm, 'not quite a threat to democracy'

Just what are you smoking?

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
4.3.3  cjcold  replied to  Tessylo @4.3.1    10 months ago

I watched all of it on TV that day. Trump laughed while he watched.

Trump and his minions invited violent fascists and directed them.

If Trump doesn't go to prison for that, justice doesn't exist here.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.3.4  devangelical  replied to  cjcold @4.3.3    10 months ago

know justice, know peace. no justice, no peace.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
4.3.5  afrayedknot  replied to  Nerm_L @4.3    10 months ago

“That's not quite a threat to democracy”

When any candidate loses a duly held election and not only refuses to acknowledge the obvious legitimacy of said election, but rather incites an ignorant, angry crowd to disrupt its certification, in defiance of two hundred plus years of democratic ascendancy, it is most definitely a dangerous and diabolical threat to all we hold dear.

And that is irrefutable. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
4.3.6  Greg Jones  replied to  cjcold @4.3.3    10 months ago

No he didn't and you can't prove otherwise.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
4.3.7  Greg Jones  replied to  afrayedknot @4.3.5    10 months ago

There is no proof he incited violence. 

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
4.3.8  afrayedknot  replied to  Greg Jones @4.3.7    10 months ago

“The truth is incontrovertible.

Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.”

Winston Churchill

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
4.3.9  cjcold  replied to  devangelical @4.3.4    10 months ago

Used to hang with the SDS back in the day. MLK said that.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.3.10  Tessylo  replied to  cjcold @4.3.3    10 months ago

'They're doing this for ME!' is what was going through the traitorous bastard's head that day.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.3.11  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @4.3.7    10 months ago

Oh yes he did.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
5  cjcold    10 months ago

Since Trump can't possibly win the general election, he might as well run. 

Sure wouldn't be the first time he's thumbed his nose at the constitution.

Seems there are folks in the minority that greatly overestimate Trump's chances.

Have read articles by staunch conservatives who would even vote Biden rather than see the insane traitor Trump back in office. Seems some actually care for country over party.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
6  bbl-1    10 months ago

Well----and finally----the conservatives and Nerm of course----have confirmed The Constitution is a 'liberal piece of crap'.

Must save Trump at all costs.  He needs the money and the grifting is good.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.1  Sparty On  replied to  bbl-1 @6    10 months ago

You’ve got it all wrong.    Liberals must resist ….. because the chosen one said so.

There you go …..

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9  Tessylo    10 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
9.1  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @9    10 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
9.2  cjcold  replied to  Tessylo @9    10 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
10  Jeremy Retired in NC    10 months ago

Federal judge dismisses lawsuit claiming Trump can't run for office under the 14th Amendment

Judge Robin L. Rosenberg ruled that Lawrence Caplan, who filed the challenge, did not have a particular legal injury to bring forth a federal lawsuit regarding the former president and the 14th Amendment. 

“Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge defendant’s qualifications for seeking the presidency, as the injuries alleged are not cognizable and not particular to them,” the judge wrote, according to   The Washington Times. 

 
 

Who is online



34 visitors