But that is in an amendment so it only has to be followed 3/5ths of the way.
I’m actually really surprised we didn’t have a new lawsuit about his ability to take the oath of office. Not that it will actually matter but these Trump sycophants should have to state publication they don’t care what the law says.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, 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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
The Colorado Supreme Court eventually ruled that he should be removed from the primary ballot.
SCOTUS did not take up the question of if Trump had participated in an inspection inspection, they only ruled that a state could not remove a candidate under the 14th section 3.
SCOTUS did not take up the question of if Trump had participated in an inspection inspection, they only ruled that a state could not remove a candidate under the 14th section 3.
Which is odd, since the constitution CLEARLY and DIRECTLY states that it takes an act of congress to put an insurrectionist onto the ballot. So requiring congress to take them off isn’t just unfounded, it’s in direct contradiction to what’s written.
But that is in an amendment so it only has to be followed 3/5ths of the way.
I’m actually really surprised we didn’t have a new lawsuit about his ability to take the oath of office. Not that it will actually matter but these Trump sycophants should have to state publication they don’t care what the law says.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61084161
None of that has been tried in a court since the supreme Court ruling. And insurrection isn’t even one of the charges in the indictment.
We can’t have a lawsuit about that till a ruling is handed down saying he did any of those things
Which the Republicans knew, so they just had to delay until he won again and can pardon/dismiss/fire Jack smith/etc
Nothing in the 14th section 3 says he must be charged with it even tried for insurrection. The Colorado trial court judge, after hearing all of the J6 evidence against Trump, found that he did engage in insurrection but did not remove him from the ballot. https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/press-releases/appeal-filed-in-colorado-14th-amendment-case/
The Colorado Supreme Court eventually ruled that he should be removed from the primary ballot.
SCOTUS did not take up the question of if Trump had participated in an inspection
inspection, they only ruled that a state could not remove a candidate under the 14th section 3.Edit: a word
Which is odd, since the constitution CLEARLY and DIRECTLY states that it takes an act of congress to put an insurrectionist onto the ballot. So requiring congress to take them off isn’t just unfounded, it’s in direct contradiction to what’s written.