reSee.it - Related Video Feed

There were problems with the 2020 election, and I have been clear about that. I forwarded an email that presented an argument from a former inspector general for Donald Rumsfeld, who is an accomplished lawyer. The argument was based on the Federalist Papers.

The US Supreme Court is hearing arguments on whether former President Trump can be barred from reelection under the 14th Amendment. Trump's attorney contends that he is not an elected official or an officer of the United States, arguing that Section 3 applies only to those in office, not candidates. He warned that affirming the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to remove Trump from the ballot could disenfranchise millions of voters. Conversely, the plaintiff's attorney claims Trump disqualified himself by attempting to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power through insurrection. The court's decision will ultimately address Trump's eligibility in light of these allegations.

If the court rules that someone who incited an insurrection to stay in office can remain on the ballot, what consequences will our country face? What if they decide he can stage a coup and then run again? The consequences will be that the voice of the people will be heard, and they get to choose their president. Also, on election night, when he wins, people will get to watch certain individuals cry on air. Thank you for your time.

The Maine secretary of state has prevented Donald Trump from appearing on the ballot due to a Supreme Court decision that allows states to block the former president from running in the election.

Some arguments about Section 3 are more persuasive than others, but proponents of the legal strategy admit it's a long shot. The Constitution has qualifications for holding office, like being a natural born citizen and being at least 35 years old. If someone gave aid to an insurrection or participated in one after swearing to uphold the Constitution, they can't be president. The question of who gets to decide is still open. Two conservative lawyers argue that state secretaries of state might have the authority to determine candidate eligibility, including whether someone is disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Maine's Democratic secretary of state, Shena Bellos, is evaluating whether Trump is disqualified from the Maine ballot. If Shakira wanted to run for president, it wouldn't be allowed.

The January 6th incident was not a Trump-led insurrection, as he was at the White House calling for calm. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled Trump an insurrectionist, barring him from the state's ballot. Critics celebrated this decision, claiming it was a victory against voters' desires. Colorado Secretary of State Griswold stated that accusations on TV are enough to disqualify a candidate, bypassing legal processes. This undemocratic behavior signals a troubling trend.

Chief Justice Roberts anticipated potential issues regarding Trump's eligibility, particularly concerning the 14th Amendment's Section 3, which bars individuals engaged in insurrection from holding office. The Supreme Court ruled against efforts to remove Trump from the ballot in Colorado, emphasizing the chaos that would ensue if states could independently decide on his eligibility. The justices agreed that Congress would need to pass a new statute to enforce Section 3, which led to differing opinions among them. Looking ahead to January 6, 2025, there are concerns that if Democrats control the House, they may attempt to block Trump's certification as president, potentially leading to an emergency Supreme Court case. This situation could have been addressed earlier in March.

This is about the accusation of election rigging against Donald Trump. The decision to remove him from the ballot is likely to be overturned by the US Supreme Court. The insurrection clause in the 14th Amendment does not apply to Trump's situation, as it was meant to prevent confederates from holding office after the Civil War. Trump has not been charged with insurrection, and removing him from the ballot violates his right to due process. Colorado officials have manipulated the clause for political reasons, interfering with the election process. This is seen as anti-democratic and equivalent to rigging the ballot box, potentially increasing support for Trump.

In the decision, it was argued that Donald Trump participated in an insurrection. The consideration of whether he should be allowed on the ballot before being found guilty of the crime of insurrection was discussed. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was carefully reviewed, which states "engage" rather than "conviction." The events of January 6, 2021, were described as unprecedented and tragic, constituting an attack on the capital, government officials, and the rule of law. The weight of evidence reviewed indicated that it was indeed an insurrection, and Donald Trump was involved according to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

My primary duty is to uphold the constitution and the rule of law. Without any other influences, we concluded that Mr. Trump committed insurrection under section 3 of the 14th amendment.

The Colorado Supreme Court has disqualified former President Donald Trump from the 2024 primary ballot, claiming his alleged involvement in the January 6th events violated the 14th Amendment's insurrectionist ban. This decision reflects the left's hypocrisy and their willingness to suppress dissenting voices. It draws parallels to Abraham Lincoln's exclusion from southern state ballots in 1860 due to his anti-slavery stance. Both Lincoln and Trump faced political exclusion, revealing the left's duplicity. The selective application of the law and unequal treatment raise concerns about political bias. These events highlight the erosion of democratic principles and the need to uphold fairness and justice in our electoral process. The disqualification of Trump is a threat to our republic and a reminder of the battle for the integrity of our democracy.

I am disappointed that states cannot bar insurrectionists from running for office. Congress may pass legislation, but they are ineffective. It is up to voters to save democracy in November.

I have 36 years of experience in the senate and have confirmed many judges appointed by the president. We can't act as a national election board. Past elections were closer, so we should accept the results.

The speaker states that a U.S. president has never been impeached twice, nor tried as a private citizen, but that this happened to the individual in question. They claim that a major presidential candidate has never had the opposing party attempt to remove him from 16 state ballots, which was then aborted by the Supreme Court, but that this also happened to the individual in question. The speaker further claims that a presidential candidate has never been the subject of five criminal and civil suits designed to bankrupt him, nor targeted for assassination on two occasions, and that Secret Service performance has never collapsed on two occasions, but that these things also happened to the individual in question.

The speaker discusses a lawsuit filed by their organization, arguing that it is necessary for the future of democracy. They counter the argument that not letting voters have their say goes against democracy by pointing out that in 2020, voters had the opportunity to choose Donald Trump as president, but he refused to accept the result and incited a violent insurrection. They explain that the provision in the 14th Amendment was included in the constitution to defend the republic from such attacks on democracy. The speaker also mentions the qualifications to be president, including not having engaged in insurrection.

Speaker 0 questions if Speaker 1 is consumed with power and cites the 14th Amendment Section 3. According to Speaker 0, under Speaker 1's new standard, one could argue that President Biden should be barred due to Section 3, which states that giving aid or comfort to enemies can lead to disqualification. Speaker 0 argues that actions like releasing funds to Iran, selling strategic oil reserves, and prioritizing Chinese interests could potentially qualify as disqualifying acts under Speaker 1's rules. Speaker 0 concludes by stating that Speaker 1 has created a dangerous game.

I support states taking aggressive action to keep him off the ballot due to his actions on January 6th. He is facing legal proceedings across the country.

This situation is unprecedented. The president of the United States is accused of trying to steal the election. He claims it is election interference, but his scheme to use fake electors and steal the presidency is the real interference. There are doubts about the lawsuit, but it exists because of Trump's actions. He is disqualified because he attempted to steal the presidency from the American people.

I am aware that my decision is unique because no Secretary of State has ever used Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to prevent a presidential candidate from being on the ballot.

The Constitution can be easily undermined, as seen with Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which is being overlooked despite its clarity. The responsibility now falls on us to address this on January 6, 2025, and inform the Trump supporters that he is disqualified. This situation creates a tense atmosphere, requiring protection for everyone involved. The justices, who have limited cases and resources, seem unwilling to interpret the 14th Amendment's significance properly. It's encouraging that Sherlyn is establishing a new center to address these issues.

The speaker explains that they made a detailed decision based on the law and evidence, determining that the events on January 6, 2021, were an insurrection and disqualifying Mr. Trump under the 14th amendment. Speaker 1 praises the decision but mentions that the Trump campaign has criticized it. The speaker emphasizes their commitment to the constitution and the rule of law, stating that they couldn't wait for the Supreme Court's decision and had to issue their own ruling. They also mention their state's strong election laws that promote voter participation and citizen engagement.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Donald Trump is disqualified from the GOP primary ballot due to his involvement in the insurrection. This decision is significant as it marks the judicial system's involvement in determining a candidate's eligibility. The previous district judge's ruling was puzzling, but the Supreme Court clarified that the 14th amendment applies to the president as well. This decision may be appealed to the US Supreme Court, where the outcome is uncertain due to the conservative majority.

The speaker discusses how the justice department's goal is to go after President Trump by using convictions from the January 6th cases to invoke section 3 of the 14th amendment. However, there are several reasons why this is not applicable. Firstly, the 14th amendment was written for Confederates in the Civil War and does not apply to modern-day situations. Secondly, the text of the 14th amendment explicitly states that it can only be enforced by Congress, not state courts. Additionally, the amendment does not apply to the presidency itself. It would also create practical issues if local courts were able to enforce it. Furthermore, there is no evidence of an insurrection on January 6th, and this has already been litigated in Congress during the second impeachment trial. Finally, there are First Amendment concerns as the conduct in question relates to political speech.

I verified Donald Trump's eligibility for the ballot, but three challenges were made by former Republican and Democratic state senators. I had to hold a hearing and make a decision within five days, as required by Maine law and the constitution. This is not a criminal matter, and the 14th Amendment's Section 3 does not mandate a conviction. It was a complex and close question, but I concluded that January 6, 2021 was not a close call.

This ruling raises concerns about states having the power to decide who can run for president without due process. The Colorado court disqualified him based on the 14th Amendment, claiming he committed insurrection. However, section 5 of the 14th Amendment clearly states that it is Congress's responsibility to enforce it, not state courts. The Supreme Court is likely to strongly oppose any state's attempt to enforce section 5. The writers of the 14th Amendment, who were radical Lincoln Republicans, intended for Congress to have centralized power, not individual states like Alabama and Mississippi, to determine presidential eligibility.