OK, not the best Leo McKern but.. But you miss the point WildieChildie, I could be, or given my looks, height, family roots and connections, wealth of course could have been. I have a masters degree too. The Bugenclan have held high office innumerable times. But you? Never.
Group sues to block Trump from 2024 ballot, citing 14th Amendment https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/group-sues-block-trump-2024-ballot-citing-14th/story?id=102964534 Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, a Washington-based watchdog group, on Wednesday filed a lawsuit on behalf of a handful of voters seeking to bar former President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot in Colorado under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment based on his alleged involvement in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. The suit marks one of the first serious challenges to Trump's qualifications as a presidential candidate based on a 14th Amendment argument. He has denied all wrongdoing and called the push to disqualify him under the 14th Amendment "election interference." This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Look what is showing up in the U.S. Supreme Court. Supreme Court to Decide Whether to Kick Trump Off Ballot https://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court-decide-whether-kick-trump-off-ballot-1824577 The legal debate about whether or not former President Donald Trump should be allowed to appear on the 2024 ballot has made its way before the Supreme Court. The court distributed John Castro v. Donald Trump to the justices for conference on Wednesday ahead of the upcoming term, which will begin on October 2. Conference is to take place on September 26 and the case is expected to be decided on or before October 9. Castro, a tax attorney running for the Republican nomination next year, sent his petition to the Supreme Court last month, asking the justices to answer whether political candidates can challenge the eligibility of another candidate of the same party running for the same nomination "based on a political competitive injury in the form a diminution of votes." The lawsuit is seeking to argue that Trump should not be allowed to run for the White House based on section three of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies individuals from holding public office if they have "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the United States. While Trump has not been charged with insurrection, Castro is pointing to Trump's role in the January 6 Capitol riot. The former president, who has pleaded not guilty to all charges in four criminal indictments this year, blasted attempts to remove his name from his ballot using the constitutional clause on Monday, remarking that most in the legal field have already called those efforts a long shot and warned that they could prove to be tricky water to navigate. "Almost all legal scholars have voiced opinions that the 14th Amendment has no legal basis or standing relative to the upcoming 2024 Presidential Election," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "Like Election Interference, it is just another 'trick' being used by the Radical Left Communists, Marxists, and Fascists, to again steal an Election that their candidate, the WORST, MOST INCOMPETENT, & MOST CORRUPT President in U.S. history, is incapable of winning in a Free and Fair Election. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" Newsweek reached out to Trump's attorney, Jesse Binnall via email for comment. Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani previously told Newsweek that it's unlikely for the justices to side with Castro since Trump has yet to be charged or convicted of insurrection and rebellion. "A conviction is not required under the plain language of the Constitution, but it's telling that even those prosecuting Trump don't believe that there is enough evidence to convict him or insurrection or sedition," Rahmani said. Other efforts to challenge Trump's candidacy using the 14th Amendment have been unsuccessful. The case brought by tax attorney Lawrence Caplan in Florida was dismissed after the judge ruled that the lawsuit lacked standing and noted that the "injuries alleged" were not "particular" to the plaintiffs. "An individual citizen does not have standing to challenge whether another individual's qualified to hold public office," Judge Robin Rosenberg wrote. Castro, however, argues that his case would have enough standing because he is directly impacted by Trump's name being on the ballot since he is also running for the Republican nomination. "Castro and Trump are not only competing for the same political position within the same political party but are also appealing to the same voter base," the Supreme Court petition reads. "In fact, throughout his campaigning efforts to date, Castro has spoken to thousands of voters who have expressed that they would vote for Castro only if Trump is not a presidential candidate as they maintain political loyalty to Trump." "Castro will further suffer irreparable competitive injuries if Trump, who is constitutionally ineligible to hold office, is able to attempt to secure votes in primary elections and raise funds. Trump's constitutionally unauthorized undertaking will put Castro at both a voter and donor disadvantage," it said. Castro, whose social media bios read "2024 Republican Presidential Candidate Suing Trump to Disqualify Him for January 6," was a supporter of Trump until the riot at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, at which point he became a fierce critic of the former president. Castro had donated to Trump's campaign after his 2016 victory.
https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/levi...ur-elections-directed-at-one-man-donald-trump ---You need not be an aging retired judge, washed-up former law professor, or NeverTrumper academician to notice that the word “president” cannot be found in this text. ---we are supposed to intuit the intention of the drafters, adopters, and ratifiers by, among other things, the words “as an officer of the United States.” Thus, this phrase, we are told, should be read to include the word “president.” Therefore, there was no need to single out by name the most powerful and important governmental official in the entire country. Consequently, the argument goes, of course the president was intended to be included in the amendment by general reference to “officer.” Any why not? After all, the local South Carolina county commissioner was not specifically mentioned either. ---This is preposterous. For most people, the absurdity is self-evident. Indeed, if they intended to include the president, you’d think he would not only be mentioned but that he’d be at the top of the list of officials included in the text. In fact, they even mention “elector of President and Vice-President,” but not the president himself.
LOL -- soon Trump will merely be a write-in candidate. MAGA supporters have plan to get Trump elected even if he's kicked off ballot: report https://www.rawstory.com/14th-amendment/ Supporters of Donald Trump are mobilizing a plan to get him elected as president even if states successfully use the 14th Amendment to get him removed from the ballot, Newsweek reported Tuesday. The amendment could potentially block Trump from running because it bars anyone from seeking the presidency if they conspire to overthrow the government. Several states have said they are considering using it, though the chances of him being removed are considered slim. As Newsweek points out, numerous Trump supporters took to X (formerly Twitter) to voice their support for a campaign to vote for Trump as a write-in candidate. "A lot of Americans will write in Trump if he is illegally removed off the ballot," Trump supporter Charles Downs wrote. "That being said, it’s more likely than not SCOTUS will block efforts to kick Trump off the ballot. In America the people, not the Deep State, choose the president." "If Trump is removed from the ballot, I will write him in," wrote Amy Kremer. Failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Kandiss Talyor also voiced support for the plan. Speaking to Newsweek, former federal prosecutor Adam Kamenstein said that the 14th Amendment option is plausible, but unlikely to be utilized. "Like all legal arguments, its practical application rests on the common acceptance of certain facts," he said. "We don't have that here, today, where facts and truth vary depending on one's political point of view. Even if everyone agreed on the underlying Constitutional scholarship, we would never see agreement on the facts to which it must be applied. So, no matter how compelling the legal scholarship, it is unlikely to gain broad acceptance."
‘It is in the public’s interest’: Judge refuses to toss voters’ insurrection clause lawsuit to kick Trump off 2024 ballot, speeding the case towards trial https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...-2024-ballot-speeding-the-case-towards-trial/ At least one lawsuit seeking to kick Donald Trump off of the 2024 ballot under the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment is speeding towards a late October trial after a state judge rejected the former president’s free speech arguments and refused to grant his “special motion to dismiss” on Thursday. Judge Sarah Wallace of the 2nd Judicial District Court in Denver, in a 21-page order, sided with a group of voters represented by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) who, citing Jan. 6, sued in September to “challenge the listing of Respondent Donald J. Trump as a candidate on the 2024 Republican presidential primary election ballot and any future election ballot, based on his disqualification from public office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” The judge noted walked through three separate arguments that the suing voters made to defend their lawsuit against Trump’s assertion that the case was a Strategic Lawsuit Against Participation (SLAPP). “Petitioners argue that the anti-SLAPP statute does not apply for three reasons: (1) there is no cause of action against Intervenor Trump and he, therefore, lacks standing; (2) this lawsuit falls within the public interest exemption to the anti-SLAPP statute; and (3) the anti-SLAPP statute is incompatible with C.R.S. § 1-1-113 and, therefore, is inapplicable,” the judge summarized. Anti-SLAPP suit laws, the judge said, “are intended to enable courts to dismiss frivolous cases brought with the intent to chill a person’s constitutional rights.” But there are certain exemptions tethered to the public interest. The anti-SLAPP “section does not apply” if “plaintiff does not seek any relief greater than or different from the relief sought for the general public or a class of which the plaintiff is a member”; “[t]he action, if successful, would enforce an important right affecting the public interest and would confer a significant benefit, whether pecuniary or nonpecuniary, on the general public or a large class of persons; [p]rivate enforcement is necessary and places a disproportionate financial burden on the plaintiff in relation to the plaintiff’s stake in the matter.” Judge Wallace, writing that her ruling had nothing to do with Trump’s politics, said it is clearly in the public interest to have a qualified candidate for president: The issue before the Court is purely an issue of law and does not turn, in any way, on the identity of the intervenor, or his political opinions. The question before the Court, as to this factor, is simple: would the preclusion of a constitutionally incapable candidate from seeking public office enforce an important right affecting the public interest and confer a significant benefit on the public? The Court, again, has little trouble finding that it would. It goes without saying that, in the abstract, ensuring that only constitutionally qualified candidates can seek to hold the highest office in the country, particularly when the disqualification sought is based on allegations of insurrection against the very government over which the candidate seeks to preside, seeks to enforce an important right which confers a significant benefit to the public. In short, it is in the public’s interest that only qualified and faithful candidates be allowed to seek public office. The Court therefore finds that this condition is met by the allegations in the Petition. After concluding that the anti-SLAPP statute Trump cited did not apply to the case, the judge said that a scheduled Oct. 13 anti-SLAPP hearing has been changed to a status conference, as the case speeds toward a trial on the merits on Oct. 30.
Follow-up... Judge in lawsuit to scratch Trump from state ballot keeps case alive https://www.rawstory.com/trump-lawsuit-kept-alive/ October 20, 2023 The judge is remaining firm in a lawsuit aiming to banish former President Donald Trump -- the frontrunner in the 2024 presidential race for the GOP nomination -- from the Colorado ballot because of his inciting crowds to lay siege on the Capitol back on Jan. 6. Trump's team and GOP lawyers backing his efforts suffered a setback when Denver District Judge Sarah Block Wallace reinforced her rejection of a filing by Trump to toss a lawsuit, noting that his objections on freedom of speech grounds did not apply. "The Court makes no judgments on the merits of Intervenor Trump’s constitutional fitness as a candidate by way of these rulings," the ruling from Friday reads. "The question which the Court considers here is, again, if a political party puts forth a constitutionally ineligible candidate, and if the Secretary of State has the legal authority to vet candidate fitness, does it violate the First Amendment for the State to disqualify that candidate on the grounds of his ineligibility?" Trump’s legal team buttressed by state Republican attorneys are in a legal battle to help the 45th president's chances of appearing on the ballot in his quest to become the 47th president. Six Colorado voters filed the lawsuit in last month in Denver, claiming that Trump should be stricken from running in future elections under the 14th Amendment, which bans any person who took the oath to support the Constitution from holding office if they "engaged in insurrection or rebellion." The judge noted that the Colorado Republican State Central Committee (CRSCC), supporting the president's defense, may be arguing that it is a violation of Trump's rights. But Judge Wallace writes it is not. According to the papers: "To find otherwise would be to permit the political parties to disregard the requirements of the law and the constitution whenever they decided as a matter of 'political expression' or 'political choice' that they did not apply." The issue about whether Trump is being penalized under the merits of the 14th amendment were not addressed and expected to be in a future filing. Trump is seeking a resolution in the case ahead of the Jan. 5 deadline for presidential candidates' names to certified for the Colorado primary.
Today the Colorado case attempting to remove Trump from the ballot based on the 14 Amendment starts. In my opinion it is unlikely to be successful to removing Trump from the ballot -- but time will tell. If this suit is successful in Colorado then other states would likely follow the ruling (when suits are filed). What to know about the 14th Amendment Trump disqualification trial in Colorado https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/29/politics/14th-amendment-trial-colorado-trump?cid=ios_app
Let's catch up with the 14th Amendment court case in Michigan. Trump sues to block efforts to keep him off the Michigan ballot Legal challenges in Michigan cited a section of the U.S. Constitution in arguing that Trump is ineligible for the primary and general elections. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...ck-efforts-keeping-michigan-ballot-rcna123066