Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is designed to safeguard democracy by preventing insurrectionists during a different time in America [Civil War] from holding office. Most scholars agree that disqualifying Trump's candidacy would potentially incite violence or unjustly disenfranchise voters.
Scholars and lawyers also note that Trump, while being sworn in as President, did not swear an oath to "support" the Constitution but rather to "preserve, protect and defend" it - A distinction found in Article II which suggests that the founding fathers intended for a more stringent criteria when it comes to barring presidents from office.
Furthermore, Section 3 specifically refers to prohibiting individuals from offices they currently occupy, not future electoral bids. This means that while debates continue about barring Trump from another presidential term, the language does not explicitly prevent him from running for president again. This significantly undermines any legal argument against Trump's potential campaign under Section 3, regardless of its controversy.
Court found Trump engaged in an insurrection. He should be disqualified. Plus he tried to overturn the results of 2020 election, & has been Criminally Charged for it. He is a disgrace. Let's not forget sharing top classified sensitive secrets. Unfit.
"The Court finds that Petitioners have established that Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump's speech," Wallace wrote.
Scholars and lawyers also note that Trump, while being sworn in as President, did not swear an oath to "support" the Constitution
Trump trying to argue technically he did not swear an oath to "support" the Constitution for legal reasons, but instead swore to "preserve, protect and defend" sure sounds a lot different. NOT.
But 4 years later after taking that oath
On January 6, 2021, Trump, who had lost his 2020 bid for re-election, stood before a rally and inflamed his supporters with lies and untruths about the 2020 election. He claimed he had won. He did not. He claimed the election was stolen. It was not. And he told the gathered thousands that the Constitutionally mandated count of electoral votes – happening at that moment in the Capitol – had to be disrupted by any means. He invoked a version of “we had to destroy the village in order to save it” – by bewitching the crowd with the poisoned logic of "in order to protect the Constitution we must violate it."
Yes he swore an oath to protect the Constitution and violated that oath. And the Judge in Colorado ruled he engaged in an insurrection.
Sure glad the number 1 MaGa here, is busy copying/pasting snippets way over person's understanding & how to apply it in a meaningful way.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is designed to safeguard democracy by preventing insurrectionists during a different time in America [Civil War] from holding office. Most scholars agree that disqualifying Trump's candidacy would potentially incite violence or unjustly disenfranchise voters.
Scholars and lawyers also note that Trump, while being sworn in as President, did not swear an oath to "support" the Constitution but rather to "preserve, protect and defend" it - A distinction found in Article II which suggests that the founding fathers intended for a more stringent criteria when it comes to barring presidents from office.
Furthermore, Section 3 specifically refers to prohibiting individuals from offices they currently occupy, not future electoral bids. This means that while debates continue about barring Trump from another presidential term, the language does not explicitly prevent him from running for president again. This significantly undermines any legal argument against Trump's potential campaign under Section 3, regardless of its controversy.
Google this all you want, because this is the only forum where this text and phrases exist.