Politics

“Dangerous”: Law Professor Sounds Alarm On Attempts To Disqualify Trump

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

An try and disqualify former President Donald Trump from showing on 2024 presidential ballots primarily based on a principle derived from the Constitution’s 14th Amendment was dismissed by a outstanding regulation professor on Tuesday.

A principle that has lately been floated within the media claims that the previous president might be blocked from ballots underneath Section 3 of the 14th Amendment through the Disqualifications Clause, which states that people who “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion” can’t maintain workplace. Proponents of the declare say that President Trump engaged in “insurrection” throughout the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol breach.

But George Washington University regulation professor Jonathan Turley said that the brand new principle is “not simply dubious but dangerous.”

“The amendment was written to deal with those who engage in an actual rebellion causing hundreds of thousands of deaths,” Mr. Turley advised Fox News.

“Advocates would extend the reference to ‘insurrection or rebellion’ to include unsupported claims and challenges involving election fraud.”

The professor, who had served as an professional impeachment witness in favor of Republicans defending President Trump, mentioned he did not favor the previous president’s speech on Jan. 6. However, he mentioned that the Jan. 6 incident was merely “a protest that became a riot” and never an rebel towards the United States.

“According to these advocates, Trump can be barred from the ballot without any charge, let alone a conviction, of insurrection or rebellion,” Mr. Turley mentioned.

Mr. Turley added that he views that some individuals who proposed the idea additionally “argue that there is no action needed from Congress” and that “state and federal judges could just bar those who are deemed as supporting rebellion through their election challenges and claims.”

Over the weekend, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), a former Democratic vice presidential candidate, said that there was a “powerful argument” for barring President Trump underneath the 14th Amendment.

“The language (of the amendment) is specific: If you give aid and comfort to those who engage in an insurrection against the Constitution of the United States—it doesn’t say against the United States, it says against the Constitution. In my view, the attack on the Capitol that day was designed for a particular purpose … and that was to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power as is laid out in the Constitution,” he advised ABC News.

The former president has lengthy denied Democrat allegations that he initiated a riot or rebel on the Capitol. He has usually pointed to a portion of his speech on Jan. 6 the place he referred to as on rally attendees to “peacefully and patriotically” protest.

Former President Donald Trump boards his non-public airplane, also referred to as Trump Force One, as he departs Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport after being booked on the Fulton County jail in Atlanta, Ga., on Aug. 24, 2023. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Also, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who had promoted usually false claims that the previous president colluded with the Russian authorities throughout his administration, additionally mentioned that the disqualification principle “matches Donald Trump to a T” during a recent MSNBC interview. He also cited the incident at the Capitol on Jan. 6, again claiming it was an insurrection led by President Trump.

Some Democrats, including state officials, have said that the theory likely doesn’t hold water.

Among them, Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes told a podcast several days ago that the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that there is “no statutory course of in federal regulation to implement Section 3 of the 14th modification” and that “you may’t simply implement it.”

“That’s what the Arizona Supreme Court mentioned, in order that’s the state of the regulation in Arizona. Now, do I agree with that? No, that’s silly,” Mr. Fontes said, saying that he disagrees with the ruling but would follow the law in that case.

Other than Mr. Turley’s comment to Fox News, another constitutional scholar and political science professor told ABC News that the 14th Amendment theory faces an uphill battle.

“The problem right here is that the 14th Amendment is not essentially self-executing. In different phrases, it does not simply robotically occur and there’s some query about what it means to be engaged in rebel or rise up and the way that’s outlined. The problem for us is that traditionally, it hasn’t been well-defined,” Kevin Wagner, a professor at Florida Atlantic University, told the outlet.

Mr. Wagner also noted that many “have instructed that this was a protest which will have gotten out of hand” during Jan. 6 and “did not rise to a stage of a rise up or an rebel.”  Elaborating, he said that the provision in the 14th Amendment also “actually activates how it’s that we assess what occurred.”

Previously, a Trump campaign spokesperson called the possible use of the 14th Amendment to disqualify the former president as election interference ahead of the 2024 contest.

“What these undemocratic organizations are doing is blatant election interference and tampering,” Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung told the Washington Post last month. “They usually are not even making an attempt to cover it anymore and it’s unhappy they need to deprive the American folks of selecting Donald Trump—the overwhelming front-runner by far—as their President. History won’t choose them kindly.”

Loading…

Source link

Related Articles

Back to top button
Available for Amazon Prime