United States | News & Politics

7223 readers

86 users here now

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

pangyuehung@lemmy.ml

yogthos@lemmy.ml

Trump argues First Amendment protects him from 'insurrection' cases aimed at keeping him off ballot (apnews.com)

submitted 1 year ago by DevCat@lemmy.world to c/usa@lemmy.ml

28 comments fedilink hide all child comments

DENVER (AP) — Attorneys for former President Donald Trump argue that an attempt to bar him from the 2024 ballot under a rarely used “insurrection” clause of the Constitution should be dismissed as a violation of his freedom of speech.

The lawyers made the argument in a filing posted Monday by a Colorado court in the most significant of a series of challenges to Trump’s candidacy under the Civil War-era clause in the 14th Amendment. The challenges rest on Trump’s attempts to overturn his 2020 loss to Democrat Joe Biden and his role leading up to the violent Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

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

[–] SheDiceToday@eslemmy.es 15 points 1 year ago (3 children)

So what are the actual outcomes that we might see? The courts eventually ruling that trump can't be tossed out for insurrection until he is convicted of a crime analogous to or part of insurrection? The courts saying individual states' electoral commissions/agencies can declare someone as an insurrectionist and block them? Or will the supreme court give their buddy a pat on the back and a treat, and say a conviction for insurrection has to be done at the federal level, if not outright declared by congress or some such stupidity?

[–] Gargleblaster@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

No, I heard this back on reddit. Some Trumpbro was trying to argue that J6 wasn't an insurrection, that it was a protest.

Whelp, what shitty luck you planned your protest to coincide with the certifying of the election results, you insurrectionist turnip.

This is going nowhere.

[–] InverseParallax@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

The civil war was a disagreement about the use of farm equipment.

[–] InverseParallax@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Ok, the 14th is dependent and enables congress to pass legislation to enforce this, and that legislation cannot be ruled unconstitutional unless its exceptionally egregious in some manner, even if it would otherwise violate their constitutional rights otherwise.

Congress can pass a law today saying DJT and anyone affiliated cannot hold or even run for office and scotus would have to accept it (probably, they do decide what this amendment says a little).

Section 5
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

[–] SheDiceToday@eslemmy.es 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So is that the only real answer (ha, real from this court... ) that should be arrived at? Perhaps a criminal conviction for the actual crime of treason would satisfy, but the only other option per the amendment is congress enforcing the article?

[–] InverseParallax@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

A criminal conviction would satisfy, but I think that's because the conviction would be under usc for treason and insurrection which was passed by congress and satisfies the 14th.

The problem is, you can't make it too easy, or they start pointing at democrats and calling them insurrectionists for no reason.

Anything else and scotus has to make the decision themselves.