226
submitted 11 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

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.

top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Jaysyn@kbin.social 82 points 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.world 59 points 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 points 11 months ago

Probably because most of those mainstream media journalists are owned by their billionaire, corporate, conservative masters.

[-] UID_Zero@infosec.pub 77 points 11 months ago

The untested legal gambit is a last-ditch effort to bar the candidacy of an ex-president who ~~remains popular with his base~~ instigated an insurrection against the nation and constitution he swore to uphold.

FIFY...his popularity is not the issue here. It never was. It's about actions he took, and what the law says happens at this point. I don't care how much his base loves him. We can see that even today, after all the history we have, people still support Hitler. People are fucking idiots, but that's not illegal. Inciting an insurrection is, however.

[-] QuarterSwede@lemmy.world 34 points 11 months ago

Yeah, this article misses the main point in its section on Does Section 3 apply to Trump? Was Jan 6th an insurrection? And if so, did Trump incite it? That’s all that matters. This is a law on the books and has been for some time. The angle that the law shouldn’t apply because voters should have the right to vote no matter what is not the question and is a straw man argument.

[-] Cheradenine@sh.itjust.works 28 points 11 months ago

'A rarely used provision' that's because violent traitorous insurrection doesn't really happen that much nowadays.

[-] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

This shows a sympathetic conservative patron over at BBC to use such weak language.

[-] Lemmialope@lemmy.today 4 points 11 months ago

Nothing to worry about if he gets elected. He was clear that he won't be a dictator "except on day one."

[-] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Murder is popular, just look how many people are doing it ;)

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 points 11 months ago

His popularity is an issue, just not in the way the article suggests. If Trump wasn't popular enough to be elected, this whole exercise would be unnecessary.

[-] takeda@lemmy.world 60 points 11 months ago

It is rarely used, because we didn't have outright traitors except during the civil war. The amendment was created exactly for this, and should also be applied to all those politicians that were involved on January 6th.

[-] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 24 points 11 months ago

"The strategy involves trying to block the fire from burning down the house by invoking a rarely used household device - a fire extinguisher - that bars small fires from becoming very large fires"

[-] Th4tGuyII@kbin.social 31 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Christ - in what world should someone who legitimately tried to pull an insurrection/coup on the country - something that already should've instantly made them an enemy of the country - get to run for its highest office?

It's ridiculous that this even has to be a "longshot legal bid" - it should literally just be ticking a box!

[-] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

When following and enforcing the law is a "plan". I don't care for how conspiratorial the title it aha but the ends justify the means 😁

[-] IHeartBadCode@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago

Trump complains about being disqualified.

Also Trump:

[-] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 4 points 11 months ago

How a state elects is clearly a state issue in the constitution and has been upheld as such except in clear violations

this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2023
226 points (98.3% liked)

News

23397 readers
1705 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS