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.