Legal experts agree that Donald Trump has a number of legal arguments at his disposal to fight back against states he excludes from the presidential ballot.
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled last month that Trump is not qualified to be president.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. And last week, Maine Secretary of State Shena Bellows (D), who is neither a lawyer nor directly elected by the people of Maine, made a similar statement.playing cards Bellows' decision was appealed. But it has not yet asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Colorado decision.
ABC News Chief Legal Analyst Dan Abrams explained on “Good Morning America” why Trump would have a significant advantage if the issue reached the Supreme Court.
“The advantage that Donald Trump’s team has is that [the Supreme Court justices] If you accept either argument, he wins,” Abrams said.
Trump has five legal arguments at his disposal, Abrams said.
“There are due process arguments, there are definitional arguments, there are questions about whether it is self-enforcement or whether Congress is required to enact the law,” he said, adding that the 14th Amendment He explained that it is also a question of whether or not it applies. President's.
“Donald Trump has an actual legal argument,” Abrams said. “The courts have a variety of options, so they will find an argument to say that Donald Trump can remain on the ballot. Deaf, I think.''
Meanwhile, CNN legal analyst Ellie Honig analyzed “four or five different ways” Trump could win by sorting out the claims in the Maine suit.
Mr. Honig, a former federal prosecutor, explained on wednesday:
- “He says, 'Well, I didn't take part in the rebellion.' It's just one line, but I think he feels obligated to deny it.”
- “He says, 'It's Congress, not the states, that tells us how the 14th Amendment works. Congress doesn't do that other than pass criminal laws. So the states tell us how it works. I haven't.''
- “He says, 'Even though it's up to the states, Maine didn't follow its own process, the secretary of state was biased against me, etc.'”
- “He went on to say, “Even though they ran their own procedures properly, it didn't give me enough due process. They held this one-day hearing.'' . There was only one witness, and that was a law professor. That doesn't fit even with minimal due process protections.”
- “He says, “Even if all other arguments fail, the president does not qualify as an officer of the United States under the Constitution.''
Honig went on to say that the most powerful arguments are #2 and #5.
Honig also predicted that the Supreme Court would step in and reconsider Colorado's decision and find “a way to make one decision and say, 'This is the end of this nationwide.'”
Do you like Blaze News? Avoid censorship and sign up for our newsletter to get articles like this delivered straight to your inbox. Please register here!
