- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution bans anyone who āengaged in insurrection or rebellion againstā the U.S. from holding office.
A Florida lawyer is suing Donald Trump in an attempt to disqualify his current run for president. Lawrence A. Caplanās Thursday lawsuit claims that the ex-presidentās involvement in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot would make him ineligible to run again, thanks to the Constitutionās 14th Amendmentāa Civil War-era addition aimed at preventing those who āengaged in insurrection or rebellion againstā the U.S. from holding office. āNow given that the facts seem to be crystal clear that Trump was involved to some extent in the insurrection that took place on January 6th, the sole remaining question is whether American jurists who swear an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution upon their entry to the bench, will choose to follow the letter of the Constitution in this case,ā the lawsuit says, also citing Trumpās alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia. Legal experts say itās an uphill battle to argue in court, since the amendment has hardly been exercised in modern history. āRealistically, itās not a Hail Mary, but itās just tossing the ball up and hoping it lands in the right place,ā Charles Zelden, a professor of history and legal studies at Nova Southeastern University, told the South Florida Sun Sentinel.
archive link to South Florida Sun Sentinel article: https://archive.ph/1BntD
Well, itās clear to everyone who isnāt a Trumper, but you need to remember that the law doesnāt always follow āitās clear to everyone.ā Due to various reasons, that law can hinge on technicalities and tests. So while we might agree that Trump engaged in insurrection, proving that he engaged in insurrection in court would be more difficult. Not impossible, mind you, but more difficult. And depending on the judge and evidence, Trump could be found, via a technicality, to have not engaged in insurrection as far as the law goes.
I donāt disagree. I think the real problem us that weāre supposed to trust the impartiality of the people making those technical legal determinations. Itās become obvious thatās a total fiction.