492

Liberal groups seek to use the Constitution's insurrection clause to block Trump from 2024 ballots (apnews.com)

submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

66 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] not_that_guy05@lemmy.world 143 points 10 months ago

Don't make this into a liberal BS. The GOP scholars were the first one to bring this up. This title is BS.

[-] MicroWave@lemmy.world 21 points 10 months ago

Huh? Based on this article, two conservative professors gave the issue a boost because of their recently released law review article, but the liberal non-profit (Free Speech For People) has been urging states to do this since 2021:

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.

...

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.

[-] hypelightfly@kbin.social 9 points 10 months ago

Letters aren't lawsuits.

[-] MicroWave@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

And neither are law review articles. I think we're talking about who pushed the idea of using the 14th Amendment first. Of course, the article also acknowledges that the first lawsuit on this issue was filed by a Republican presidential candidate:

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.

[-] not_that_guy05@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

No what I'm saying is it's not just a liberal thing that this title is trying to stroke flames here. It is the unilateral parties that believes he is a threat to democracy.

What I'm saying is the title is trying to do them vs us again when it's not. Both parties scholars have been arguing this case for Trump not to be allowed again and they are right.

this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023

492 points (94.9% liked)

politics

18075 readers

2857 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News