Reply To: Maine Removes Donald Trump from Primary ballot, the 2nd state

  • outdoorsguy

    December 30, 2023 at 8:49 am

    U.S. Supreme Court expected to hear insurrection case against the Florida Criminal Defendant

    A rule meant to expel separatist rebels from politics after the U.S. Civil War is now being invoked to determine the fate of The Twice Impeached, 4 Times Indicted, Criminal Defendant Donald Trump.

    Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment bars people from holding office if they ever engaged in insurrection or rebellion after swearing an oath as an officer of the U.S.

    Now the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to be asked to make one of the most momentous constitutional decisions in American history: whether this bars the Republican presidential front-runner from running for president.

    This comes after a state court found the Florida Criminal Defendant Trump, ineligible to run for office after he inspired his mob to attack the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in an effort to halt the transfer of power to Joe Biden.

    “It is an extraordinary historical moment,” said Richard Friedman, an expert on constitutional law and the history of the Supreme Court at the University of Michigan.

    “A criminal defendant for president has just been held ineligible to be on the ballot.”

    Friedman was referring to the groundbreaking ruling on Tuesday by the Colorado Supreme Court that ordered Trump removed from the state’s primary ballot, in a move that’s hypothetical for now: The court paused enforcement of the decision to give the U.S. Supreme Court a chance to weigh in.

    The nation’s top court will be pressed to consider every angle of that above-mentioned amendment from 1868: What is an officer? What is an insurrection? What does it mean to be engaged in one? And who gets to make that determination?

    ‘Uncharted territory’

    In their ruling, the Colorado judges made clear their own awareness that they were doing something unprecedented.

    “We do not reach these conclusions lightly. We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us,” the court said in its decision.

    “We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favour, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach. We are also cognizant that we travel in uncharted territory.”