Trump’s 2024 Hurdle: Inside the Battle Over the 14th Amendment…

Latest articles

CPAC vs. South Carolina GOP Primary: What’s...

In the absence of a better phrase, it is a political watershed day that...

Can Haley Bridge the Divide? Democrats Showing...

To mitigate what looks like an inevitable crushing loss in the home state's primary,...

Trump’s Bold Move: Dismissal of Classified Documents...

By presenting a jumble of arguments, including that the charges are legally flawed, that...

The 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban” was used by anti-Trump challengers to successfully remove former President Donald Trump from the ballot in Maine and Colorado. However, these verdicts have been halted pending possible appeals.

Minnesota, Michigan, and a few other states have dismissed more substantial claims due to procedural issues.

On Thursday, the top election official in California chose to retain Trump on the list of approved candidates for the state’s Republican primary, despite political pressure to remove him, even though there was no formal judicial challenge in the state.

In the run-up to the primary election in 2024, further obstacles remain, one of which is in Oregon.

The complex legal issues at hand are summarised below.
To what extent is the 14th Amendment relevant?

After the Civil War, the United States ratified the 14th Amendment, which states that public officials who pledge to defend the Constitution cannot be re-elected if they have “engaged in insurrection” or “given aid or comfort” to those who are fighting for a different kind of government.

Nevertheless, the prohibition remains unenforced, and the nebulous wording raises doubts as to whether it encompasses the presidency at all.

“No person shall… hold any office… under the United States… who, having previously taken an oath… to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof,” reads a portion of Section 3, the most important amendment provision.
Does this sound familiar?

Ex-Confederates were often disqualified in the late 1800s under the restriction, but its relevance outside of the Civil War era is murkier.

In 1919, a socialist lawmaker was removed from office by Congress using the 14th Amendment. Based on the 14th Amendment, a New Mexico judge removed a county commissioner guilty of rioting on January 6, 2022, from his post.

The officer in question had a prior conviction for an offence that occurred on January 6th in that instance. Despite pleading not guilty and postponing trial, Trump is confronted with state and federal accusations pertaining to the violence in the Capitol and his endeavours to annul the 2020 election.

There has never been a circumstance in American history comparable to Trump. Up until this point, no sitting US president has ever done anything that could be construed as an act of rebellion.

Applying the 14th Amendment “insurrectionist ban” to a presidential candidate, especially one who is clearly leading in the GOP polls and could be nominated by a major party, is unusual.
Oregon is where the next big case will be decided.

A significant 14th Amendment lawsuit in Oregon may soon have a decision.

Earlier this month, the leftist advocacy group Free Speech For People took the matter directly to the Oregon Supreme Court. It asks the Supreme Court to disqualify Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential and general election ballots due to his involvement in the January 6 rebellion.

On Friday, attorneys representing Trump asked the Supreme Court of Oregon to reject the lawsuit involving the 14th Amendment. The Oregon justices are free to provide their opinions whenever they choose now that all of the papers have been submitted.

Democrat LaVonne Griffin-Valade, Oregon’s secretary of state, requested that the court dismiss the case due to procedural issues.

In essence, Griffin-Valade contended that the moment has not come to investigate Trump’s qualifications for office. According to her, the Oregon legislation demanding her to ascertain if a candidate has “become disqualified” is exclusive to the general election and has no bearing on the GOP primary.

Friday, Trump’s legal team filed a brief in which they agreed with Griffin-Valade that the state’s vote access regulations provide sufficient procedural grounds to dismiss the case.

Attorneys for Trump stated that the Secretary of State “properly recognises” that she is not authorised by Oregon law to investigate the eligibility of presidential primary candidates. The Secretary of State is required by Oregon law to follow specific guidelines for selecting presidential candidates for the state’s primary ballot. No investigation into a candidate’s qualifications to be president is part of those particular requirements.

Officials at Oregon’s election office have stated that March 21 is the deadline for finalising names for the primary ballot. Tuesday, May 21st, is the date of the Oregon primary.

There may not be much of an effect even if Trump is removed off the primary ballot. The Republican nomination campaign might be settled by the time Oregon has its contest, as it is one of the last states to do so. The Republican National Committee has announced that the allocation of Oregon’s GOP delegates will be determined by a vote held during the state party convention on May 25.
After Colorado and Maine, what comes next?

A source informed us that on Tuesday, Trump’s legal team is set to challenge two rulings that were made to remove him from the primary ballots in Maine and Colorado.

In the case of the Colorado ruling, Trump would take it to the US Supreme Court. As for the Maine secretary of state’s decision, he would take it to state court.

The Republican Party of Colorado has previously filed an appeal with the Colorado Supreme Court. As a result of the court’s decision to hold off on making a final finding until after an appeal, Trump will be on the January 5 certified state primary ballot—barring a rejection or affirmation of the Colorado ruling by the US Supreme Court.

Until the Superior Court of Maine makes a determination, Democrat Secretary of State Shenna Bellows of Maine has decided to hold off on making a decision. That court and the state Supreme Court are required by statute to make a ruling by the end of January in the event that the verdict is challenged.

Following her decision to remove Trump from the 2024 primary ballot, Bellows informed HEADLINESFOREVER on Friday that her office had received threats.

During an interview with HEADLINESFOREVER’s Kaitlan Collins for “The Situation Room,” Bellows stated, “We have received threatening communications.”

“I definitely fret over the security of individuals dear to me, those in my immediate vicinity, and those entrusted with my protection and collaboration,” she continued. To be clear, the most critical thing is that the United States is a nation based on laws. Consequently, my whole attention has been devoted to fulfilling my duty to defend the Constitution.


More like this

CPAC vs. South Carolina GOP Primary: What’s Happening Today?

In the absence of a better phrase, it is a political watershed day that might provide the Republican Party the confirmation it needed over...

Can Haley Bridge the Divide? Democrats Showing Interest…

To mitigate what looks like an inevitable crushing loss in the home state's primary, Nikki Haley and her supporters are relying on Democrats. A small...

Trump’s Bold Move: Dismissal of Classified Documents Case…

By presenting a jumble of arguments, including that the charges are legally flawed, that prosecutors have targeted him for political reasons, and that the...