PDA

View Full Version : SCOTUS Will Decide Whether To Take Trump 14th Amendment Issue



Kathianne
09-07-2023, 09:52 AM
Probably a good thing to get final answer:

https://conservativebrief.com/supreme-decide-76239/


Supreme Court To Decide Whether to Take 14th Amendment Case Involving Trump

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on arguments that Democrats and some Republicans are making that former President Donald Trump should be barred from running again for office under a provision of the 14th Amendment.


The high court will consider whether or not to take the case, John Castro v. Donald Trump, during their Sept. 29 conference. A final decision on whether to accept it will be made by Oct. 9, according to the site 1945.


“Castro, a Texas tax attorney, claims that Trump participated in an insurrection against the U.S. government by organizing his rally against certification of the 2020 election on Jan. 6, 2021. He is a declared candidate for the Republican nomination and has previously run for various offices. Castro ran for his first race in 2004 as a Democrat. He is currently running as a write-in candidate,” the site noted further.


His initial lawsuit was tossed out by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon in June, the federal judge appointed by Trump who is also overseeing his classified documents case in Miami.


“The decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissing Petitioner John Anthony Castro’s civil action on the grounds that he lacks constitutional standing to sue another candidate who is allegedly unqualified to hold public office in the United States pursuant to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution,” the candidate wrote in his Writ of Certiorari to the high court.


He has claimed that Trump’s appearance on the ballot harms his ability to collect small-dollar donations for his campaign.


1945 noted that, according to Federal Election Commission records, Castro has raised $0 in donations, but the AI tech company founder has loaned his campaign $20 million in personal funds.


According to his Supreme Court brief, Castro said his objective is to “display his executive leadership by single-handedly ending Trump’s political career.”


1945 notes further:


Castro claims that Trump waited 187 minutes to tell the rioters who stormed the Capitol to leave despite the fact that the former president repeatedly tweeted for calm within the first hour of the riot. His original suit claimed that Trump incited an “insurrection” by saying his followers should “Fight like hell,” which likely was a figurative reference considering that he talked about “peacefully” walking to the Capitol.


He also claims that Trump gave aid and comfort to insurrectionists when he told those who showed up for his rally and those at the Capitol that they were “very special.” Castro’s additional claim that Trump is a supporter of an insurrection is based on Trump’s promise that he would pardon prosecuted January 6 rioters.


Castro has been attempting to thwart Trump’s third bid for the White House since February 2022, according to his Facebook page after filing complaints with the Federal Election Commission.


“Tomorrow’s federal lawsuit against the FEC and Trump is just the beginning. I will not rest until Trump is banned from public office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment along with every federal, state, and local public official that expressed support for the January 6 Insurrection. #StormIsComing #IAmTheStorm,” Castro wrote in a Feb. 10, 2022 post.


“The Ukraine Crisis is the making of multiple presidencies, including Trump. No doubt Obama failed to respond to Russia’s 2014 invasion of Crimea. But Trump had 4 years to do something and instead did nothing. Now he’s calling Putin a ‘genius’ and rooting for him?! TREASON,” Castro wrote later in the month.


Legal experts have repeatedly weighed in on the claim that Trump should be ineligible to hold federal office again under the Constitution.


One of them, Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz, “noted that no formal mechanism exists to determine that a President of the United States of America participated in an ‘insurrection’ in a recent newsletter.”

Kathianne
09-07-2023, 10:13 AM
CO is trying to keep him off ballot via 14th amendment; meanwhile in GA, one of his antagonists is arguing the opposit:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-cant-keep-trump-off-the-ballot-georgia-sec-state-14th-amendment-c1017ede?st=jtr0ys5bcs6j1sl&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink


OPINIONCOMMENTARY
I Can’t Keep Trump Off the Ballot
Voters should decide elections: That’s the simple lesson of Georgia in 2018 and 2020.
By Brad Raffensperger
Sept. 6, 2023 12:27 pm ET

Atlanta


Some legal scholars are arguing that secretaries of state should remove Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which states that a public official is ineligible for public office if he has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” America. But Georgia law contemplates a legal process that must take place before anyone is removed from the ballot. Anyone who believes in democracy must let the voters decide.


OPINION: POTOMAC WATCH
WSJ Opinion Potomac Watch
Does the 14th Amendment Disqualify Donald Trump?


The 14th Amendment was a product of the Reconstruction era, immediately following the Civil War. It was written to keep former Confederate officials and leaders from regaining power by holding public office, and historians have questioned whether it was meant as a permanent standard. It went nearly unused after the 1870s until September 2022, when a state judge in New Mexico removed a county commissioner who participated in the Capitol riot of Jan. 6, 2021. Attempts to invoke Section 3 against the candidacies of Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and North Carolina Rep. Madison Cawthorn failed. Each of the cases required a decision in the courts. But activists are urging secretaries of state like me to bar Mr. Trump from the ballot unilaterally.


Invoking the 14th Amendment is merely the newest way of attempting to short-circuit the ballot box. Since 2018, Georgia has seen losing candidates and their lawyers try to sue their way to victory. It doesn’t work. Stacey Abrams’s claims of election mismanagement following the 2018 election were rejected in court, as were Mr. Trump’s after the 2020 election.


Mr. Trump might win the nomination and general election. Or he could lose. The outcomes should be determined by the people who show up to make their preference known in primaries (including Georgia’s on March 12) and the general election on Nov. 5. A process that denies voters their chance to be the deciding factor in the nomination and election process would erode the belief in our uniquely American representative democracy.


For a secretary of state to remove a candidate would only reinforce the grievances of those who see the system as rigged and corrupt. Denying voters the opportunity to choose is fundamentally un-American. Since our founding, Americans have believed that a government is just when it has earned the consent of the governed. Taking away the ability to choose—or object to—the eligibility of candidates eliminates that consent for slightly less than half of the country.

...

Kathianne
09-07-2023, 10:48 AM
More:

https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/trumps-2024-eligibility-ignites-debateand-litigation-29749d30?mod=hp_lead_pos11

Gunny
09-07-2023, 11:14 AM
My opinion is if SCOTUS takes the argument, they have little choice, according to law, but rule against minus a conviction deemed worthy of disqualification. With the current bunch of yahoo voters, I doubt such exists:rolleyes: Pretty sure the same argument will be back if and/or when there is a conviction.

Meantime, I'm not much of a fan of guilty until proven innocent.

Kathianne
09-07-2023, 11:16 AM
My opinion is if SCOTUS takes the argument, they have little choice, according to law, but rule against minus a conviction deemed worthy of disqualification. With the current bunch of yahoo voters, I doubt such exists:rolleyes: Pretty sure the same argument will be back if and/or when there is a conviction.

Meantime, I'm not much of a fan of guilty until proven innocent.

That is my thought, can't keep him off ballot based upon the left's perception-including their bringing charges. IF he's convicted, it will likely be revisited.

Gunny
09-07-2023, 11:18 AM
That is my thought, can't keep him off ballot based upon the left's perception-including their bringing charges. IF he's convicted, it will likely be revisited.Sure it will. SCOTUS will then have to determine what "is" is -- what's disqualifying and what is not.

We have gone from being a Nation of Laws to a Nation of Lawsuits:rolleyes:

Kathianne
09-07-2023, 11:21 AM
Sure it will. SCOTUS will then have to determine what "is" is -- what's disqualifying and what is not.

We have gone from being a Nation of Laws to a Nation of Lawsuits:rolleyes:

I'm sorry to say, but that became reality with the election of Trump. As I said during the primary, IF he won the country was going to change in ways that weren't being acknowledged and likely would be damaging for the long haul. It's not just the GOP, but the country.

Gunny
09-07-2023, 11:29 AM
I'm sorry to say, but that became reality with the election of Trump. As I said during the primary, IF he won the country was going to change in ways that weren't being acknowledged and likely would be damaging for the long haul. It's not just the GOP, but the country.I'm not sure if I can blame that one on Trump. Escalation? Yes. But the Dems have been using it as a legislative tool since at least GWB.

I find it infuriating that they do. But is it stopped? Nope. Republicans are slowly getting on board playing the same game a couple of decades after the fact.

Kathianne
09-07-2023, 11:32 AM
I'm not sure if I can blame that one on Trump. Escalation? Yes. But the Dems have been using it as a legislative tool since at least GWB.

I find it infuriating that they do. But is it stopped? Nope. Republicans are slowly getting on board playing the same game a couple of decades after the fact.

He is and was a serial lawsuit guy. He constantly was threatening, though as president not following through, most noticeably with the election problems when lawsuits should have been being fought at state and federal levels. He brought the problems with IRS and women with him into office, openly. So they continue.

Gunny
09-07-2023, 02:25 PM
He is and was a serial lawsuit guy. He constantly was threatening, though as president not following through, most noticeably with the election problems when lawsuits should have been being fought at state and federal levels. He brought the problems with IRS and women with him into office, openly. So they continue.

The party let him run. Now it can't get rid of him. While I am all for cleaning up the GOP, it isn't using the semi-Dem obstructionists currently calling everyone else a RINO. Unfortunately, along with some good people, the latest 3rd party seems to be attracting some kooks and (I'm sure by design) getting very little publicity.

AHZ
09-08-2023, 09:36 AM
The party let him run. Now it can't get rid of him. While I am all for cleaning up the GOP, it isn't using the semi-Dem obstructionists currently calling everyone else a RINO. Unfortunately, along with some good people, the latest 3rd party seems to be attracting some kooks and (I'm sure by design) getting very little publicity.


what's the new third party?