Former President Donald J. Trump’s team had argued that his words and actions leading up to the attack on the Capitol were protected by the First Amendment, and asked that the Colorado case be thrown out.

In particular, section 3 of the 14th amendment reads:

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.

This was passed after the civil war as a means of ensuring that confederates weren’t allowed to hold office.

There are modern examples as a result of the Jan. 6 2021 insurrection as well.

  • @Got_Bent
    22•1 year ago

    Colorado. Neat. Are any of these suits being brought in key swing states? Those are what matter. Maybe this will set precedent for other states.

  • AutoTL;DRBEnglish
    5•1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:

    It came after a lawyer for Mr. Trump asked for a “directed verdict” — essentially a conclusion, even before the defense had called any witnesses, that no legally sufficient basis existed for the plaintiffs to prevail.

    The case — one of several similar ones around the country — was filed by six Colorado voters who argue that Mr. Trump is disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars from office anyone who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the Constitution after having taken an oath to support it.

    They included two experts intended to build the case that Mr. Trump incited far-right extremists to attack the Capitol and that this constituted “engaging in insurrection,” as those words were understood when the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.

    Peter Simi, a professor of sociology at Chapman University and an expert on political extremism, testified Tuesday that the far right used “doublespeak” — language that insiders understood to be calling for violence, but that maintained plausible deniability.

    Among other sources, Professor Magliocca cited congressional debate records; court rulings; legal analyses written by the attorney general at the time; and two instances after the Civil War, but shortly before the 14th Amendment was ratified, in which Congress refused to seat members.

    Mr. Trump’s team argued that his statements before Jan. 6 were too far removed to meet the “imminent” standard; that nothing he said on Jan. 6 called for violence; and that, even if it had, his mention of marching “peacefully and patriotically” would negate violent intent.

    The original article contains 854 words, the summary contains 256 words. Saved 70%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

    • @SkyezOpen
      2•1 year ago

      his mention of marching “peacefully and patriotically” would negate violent intent.

      OK cool now explain “proud boys stand back and stand by”?

  • @[email protected]
    1•1 year ago

    Engaged in, sure that’s a hard argument to make. Certainly the giving aid or comfort to - especially giving comfort to - part is inarguable. It reads pretty clearly that the intent of the law is if you’re in any way connected to insurrection/rebellion and you do not immediately condemn and disavow those actions you’re fully compliant as far as the legal system is concerned.