.elementor-panel-state-loading{ display: none; }
total-news-1024x279-1__1_-removebg-preview.png

LANGUAGE

SELECT LANGUAGE BELOW

Former AGs File Brief Insisting Trump Constitutionally Qualified for Ballot

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Three former U.S. attorneys general, including Bill Barr, who has not supported Donald Trump's campaign for the Republican nomination, said in a brief filed by their lawyers Thursday with the U.S. Supreme Court that Trump has no right to the Constitution. He insisted that he was qualified to participate in the presidential vote. .

In addition to Mr. Barr, former Republican Attorneys General Edwin Meese III and Michael B. Mukasey and several law professors made up the court's bench. trump vs anderson simple.aHis defense comes after the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in a 4-3 decision that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, colloquially known as the “insurrection clause,” barred Trump from voting. The group and the Colorado Republican Party objected to the effort.

U.S. Attorney General William Barr (Photo by Brendan SMIALOWSKI/AFP) (Photo by BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP, Getty Images)

A brief filed by attorney Jean Schaer of the Schaer Jaffe law firm says the Colorado court's decision is a “misrepresentation” of the provision and, if upheld, “the decision would be catastrophic for our democratic republic.” “It will set a precedent that will have consequences.”

The central argument in the brief, written by law professors Stephen Calabresi and Gary Lawson and the group Citizens United, which is also an amici curiae, is that the provision does not pertain to presidential candidates.

This is evident in the text of section 3, which omits the president and instead specifies specific positions such as senators and representatives. Earlier versions of the proposed document included the president and vice president, but later versions excluded those positions and instead disqualified the president. elector Who chooses the occupants of the offices of president and vice president?

The court cites the historical record of the 14th Amendment, passed in 1868 shortly after the Civil War.

Former Attorney General Edwin Meese draws applause as President Donald Trump speaks during a ceremony to award Meese the Presidential Medal of Freedom in the Oval Office of the White House on Tuesday, October 8, 2019 in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon

“The historical record further reveals that the framers and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment were not concerned about whether a Confederate leader could become president,” the brief states. . Rather, the framers and ratifiers were “concerned that former Confederate members would be elected to the House or Senate, which is why these offices are listed in Article III. “It explains.''

“Obtaining office in a former Confederate state is the only real risk, and Section 3 was created to address that concern,” the brief adds.

Additionally, the main text lists, as a summary highlight, a hierarchical ranking of civil servants starting with U.S. senators and U.S. representatives, without explicitly mentioning the presidency. The brief argues that other language in this section was not historically understood to include the office of president.

The document states the hierarchy of government offices in descending order, and references to “officers of the United States” lower down the hierarchy cannot include the president. As these terms were historically understood, “state” did not include the presidency.

of amicus He goes on to argue that:Even if the conclusion that he committed an insurrection is correct, President Trump cannot be excluded from voting in the presidential election on that basis. Basics. “

Mukasey

Michael Mukasey, FBN's Sunday Morning Futures, August 14, 2022

Under the second key argument, they point out that Section 3 is not self-enforcing, which ultimately led Congress to enact the federal Insurrection Act, 18 USC § 2383. bar A person convicted of rebellion or sedition from holding political office.

“However, President Trump has never even been indicted for violating Section 2383, much less convicted under that section,” the brief says.

Third, the court the court argues.Resist any interpretation of Article 3 that gives partisan public officials the power to unilaterally disqualify politicians of opposing parties. Notably, Maine Secretary of State Shena Bellows followed the Colorado Supreme Court's lead in unilaterally ruling that Trump was ineligible to vote in Maine due to the “insurrection clause.” be.

The preparatory document proposes the following:The hypothesis is that the partisan shoe is on the other side.''

If Colorado's decision is correct, Georgia's Republican secretary of state could unilaterally disqualify Democratic President Biden from voting in the battleground state the day before the ballot certification deadline — perhaps even for President Biden. They will probably judge that some of their policies are lawless in that respect. In the Secretary's view, this is a practice that constitutes an “insurrection.” Other Republican officials are also threatening to do just that.

Ultimately, the brief concludes that absent new 14th Amendment Section 3 legislation passed by the U.S. Congress, any American would be prevented from running for president.

The full text of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment is as follows:

No person may serve as a senator or representative of Congress, or as an elector for president and vice president, under the United States or any state, or as an elector of the United States or under any state, unless he has previously taken the oath of office as a member of Congress. He shall not be eligible to hold any office, civil or military, under the State. engaged in rebellion or insurrection in support of the Constitution of the United States, either as a member of Congress or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of a state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state; There is. In the same way, or to give aid or comfort to one's enemies. However, Congress can remove such obstacles by a two-thirds vote in each house.

The case is trump vs andersonNo. 23-719, Supreme Court of the United States.

Disclosure: Breitbart News Senior Legal Contributor Ken Krukowski is Senior Counsel at Shah Jaffe & Co. Co-authored the summary with Gene Shah.

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Reddit
Telegram
WhatsApp