- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
A longshot legal bid in multiple US states to disqualify Donald Trump from the 2024 US presidential ballot has pulled off a shock victory in Colorado.
The strategy involves trying to block Mr Trump from the primary ballot by invoking a rarely used provision of the US Constitution - Section 3 of the 14th Amendment - that bars those who have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the country from holding federal office.
Initially backed by liberal activists, the theory gained more prominence in recent months as some conservatives also embraced it.
The Colorado Supreme Court was the first to side with the theory, removing Mr Trump from the state’s 2024 presidential ballot in a ruling published the week before Christmas.
It is the first time that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has been used to disqualify a presidential candidate.
You must log in or register to comment.
It shouldn’t be a “longshot”. The language of the 14th Amendment is very clear & only a high paid lawyer could possibly think otherwise.
.
Probably because most of those mainstream media journalists are owned by their billionaire, corporate, conservative masters.
The untested legal gambit is a last-ditch effort to bar the candidacy of an ex-president who
remains popular with his baseinstigated an insurrection against the nation and constitution he swore to uphold.FIFY…his popularity is not the issue here. It never was. It’s about actions he took, and what the law says happens at this point. I don’t care how much his base loves him. We can see that even today, after all the history we have, people still support Hitler. People are fucking idiots, but that’s not illegal. Inciting an insurrection is, however.
Yeah, this article misses the main point in its section on Does Section 3 apply to Trump? Was Jan 6th an insurrection? And if so, did Trump incite it? That’s all that matters. This is a law on the books and has been for some time. The angle that the law shouldn’t apply because voters should have the right to vote no matter what is not the question and is a straw man argument.
‘A rarely used provision’ that’s because violent traitorous insurrection doesn’t really happen that much nowadays.
This shows a sympathetic conservative patron over at BBC to use such weak language.
Nothing to worry about if he gets elected. He was clear that he won’t be a dictator “except on day one.”
Murder is popular, just look how many people are doing it ;)
His popularity is an issue, just not in the way the article suggests. If Trump wasn’t popular enough to be elected, this whole exercise would be unnecessary.
It is rarely used, because we didn’t have outright traitors except during the civil war. The amendment was created exactly for this, and should also be applied to all those politicians that were involved on January 6th.
“The strategy involves trying to block the fire from burning down the house by invoking a rarely used household device - a fire extinguisher - that bars small fires from becoming very large fires”
Christ - in what world should someone who legitimately tried to pull an insurrection/coup on the country - something that already should’ve instantly made them an enemy of the country - get to run for its highest office?
It’s ridiculous that this even has to be a “longshot legal bid” - it should literally just be ticking a box!
When following and enforcing the law is a “plan”. I don’t care for how conspiratorial the title it aha but the ends justify the means 😁
Trump complains about being disqualified.
Also Trump:
How a state elects is clearly a state issue in the constitution and has been upheld as such except in clear violations
