The Constitution bars those "engaged in insurrection" from office. But does that apply to Mr Trump?

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.

  • Jaysyn@kbin.social
    831·
    11 months ago

    It shouldn’t be a “longshot”. The language of the 14th Amendment is very clear & only a high paid lawyer could possibly think otherwise.

    • Blackbeard@lemmy.worldEnglish
      601·
      11 months ago

      Yeah they’re playing directly into the narrative of the right. If it’s a “longshot” or “shock victory”, then it can easily be blamed on “activist judges”, and therefore ignored as political or a witch hunt. It’s not a “longshot”. It’s a plain text reading of the US Constitution. And its not a “shock victory”, or a “strategy”. It’s not a fucking “victory” at all that we’re in this disgusting mess. It’s unprecedented because what Trump did IS UNPRECEDENTED. No one is winning in this situation.

      I fucking hate 21st century journalists.

      • undercrust@lemmy.ca
        1·
        11 months ago

        Probably because most of those mainstream media journalists are owned by their billionaire, corporate, conservative masters.

  • UID_Zero@infosec.pubEnglish
    77·
    11 months ago

    The untested legal gambit is a last-ditch effort to bar the candidacy of an ex-president who remains popular with his base instigated 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.

    • QuarterSwede@lemmy.world
      34·
      11 months ago

      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.

    • Lemmialope
      4·
      11 months ago

      Nothing to worry about if he gets elected. He was clear that he won’t be a dictator “except on day one.”

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.comEnglish
      1·
      11 months ago

      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.

  • takeda@lemmy.world
    60·
    11 months ago

    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.

    • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
      24·
      11 months ago

      “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”

  • Th4tGuyII@kbin.social
    31·
    11 months ago

    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!

  • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
    8·
    11 months ago

    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 😁