Democrats hope a 55-year old ruling will remove Trump from the ballot
Democrats Double-Down in Hopes That 55-Year Old Ruling Will Remove Trump from Ballot
Buoyed by a lower court ruling branding former President Donald Trump an insurrectionist for his role in the Capitol incursion, his opponents are pushing for an appeals court to throw him off of the Colorado ballot.
A brief filed by one party in the case argues that Trump is on shaky legal grounds by saying states do not have the power to ban individuals from the ballot.
“[Trump] has argued that states have no power to judge the qualifications of candidates or that it is a political question. The historical record however suggests that in at least some cases, states have excluded candidates,” Derek Muller, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, said, according to Newsweek.
A lower court ruling said Trump was an insurrectionist, a point he disputes. The ruling also said that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bans from several offices office those who have committed insurrection against the federal government, does not appear to apply to the presidency.
As such, District Judge Sarah Wallace said Trump should stay on the ballot. Last week, the Colorado Supreme Court heard arguments appealing that ruling.
Donald Trump’s bid for another term as the President of the United States could potentially hit a snag as Colorado and several other states mull if a ban on insurrectionists taking office also applies to the presidency. https://t.co/c9K0nEIccU
— Black Enterprise (@blackenterprise) December 10, 2023
Muller said that there is a precedent for states banning someone, saying that California acted in 1968 to ban former Black Panther leader Eldridge Cleaver because he had not reached the required age of 35.
Muller said it was uncertain which way Colorado’s highest court would rule.
“There are a number of things that the Colorado Supreme Court must find to exclude him from the ballot, but any one thing in Trump’s favor can keep him on,” Muller said.
Trump’s lawyers have made the argument that the clause in question did not apply to the presidency, while it did to specific positions such as senator or representative listed in the Amendment.
“How is that not absurd?” Justice Richard Gabriel asked, according to The New York Times.
Attorney Scott Gessler said the Capitol incursion was not an insurrection, saying an insurrection “has to be longer than three hours” and “broader than one building.”
He argued that only Congress could determine if Trump was eligible under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Some on the court agreed with his position.
“If it was so important that the president be included, I come back to the question, Why not spell it out?” Justice Carlos Samour Jr. said, according to the Associated Press. “Why not include president and vice president in the way they spell out senator or representative?”
The Colorado case is among several filed by groups trying to keep Trump off the ballot. Rulings in Minnesota and Michigan have so far gone in Trump’s favor. A lawsuit in Oregon has only just been filed.
AP noted that a ruling from the seven Democrat-appointed judges on the Supreme Court will very likely be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The post Democrats Double-Down in Hopes That 55-Year Old Ruling Will Remove Trump from Ballot appeared first on The Western Journal.
What argument did Derek Muller make regarding Trump’s claim that states cannot judge the qualifications of candidates?
The Democrats have intensified their efforts to remove former President Donald Trump from the Colorado ballot, following a lower court ruling that labeled him an insurrectionist for his involvement in the Capitol incursion. In a brief filed by one of the parties involved in the case, it was argued that Trump’s claim that states do not have the authority to ban individuals from the ballot is legally tenuous.
Derek Muller, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, explained that Trump’s argument that states cannot judge the qualifications of candidates or that it is a political question is not supported by historical records. Muller referred to previous cases where states have excluded candidates, citing the example of California banning former Black Panther leader Eldridge Cleaver in 1968 due to his failure to meet the required age of 35.
The lower court ruled that Trump should remain on the ballot, stating that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits individuals who have committed insurrection against the federal government from holding several offices, does not appear to apply to the presidency. District Judge Sarah Wallace made this determination, and the case is now before the Colorado Supreme Court, which heard arguments appealing the ruling last week.
Muller emphasized that it is uncertain how the Colorado Supreme Court will rule on this matter. He explained that there are several criteria that the court must consider in order to exclude Trump from the ballot, but any one factor in Trump’s favor may allow him to remain on the ballot.
Trump’s lawyers have argued that the clause in question does not apply to the presidency, but rather to specific positions such as senator or representative listed in the Amendment. However, Justice Richard Gabriel questioned the validity of this argument, asking, “How is that not absurd?”
The outcome of this case will have significant implications for Trump’s potential bid for another term as President of the United States. If the Colorado Supreme Court rules in favor of removing him from the ballot, it could set a precedent for other states considering similar actions. However, if Trump succeeds in remaining on the ballot, it will provide him with an opportunity to pursue another presidential campaign.
As the legal battle unfolds, the focus will be on whether states have the authority to exclude candidates from the ballot based on their qualifications and past actions. This case highlights the ongoing tensions between Trump and his opponents, as they continue to grapple over his political future.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
