Is Trump Disqualified? Republicans Prepare to Fight Long-Shot Legal Theory.
New Hampshire has become the center of a heated debate among Republicans over whether former President Donald J. Trump is disqualified from running for president under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The debate has sparked discussions in other states as well, as Republicans and Democrats alike watch closely.
The controversy stems from a long-shot legal theory that argues Trump’s actions on January 6, 2021, disqualify him from holding office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. This section prohibits individuals who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States from holding office if they previously took an oath to support the Constitution.
The theory gained momentum after two conservative law professors published an article supporting the disqualification argument. However, even proponents of the theory acknowledge that it faces significant legal hurdles. If a secretary of state were to strike Trump’s name from the ballot or if a voter lawsuit were to advance, Trump’s campaign would likely appeal the decision, potentially leading to a Supreme Court battle.
The debate over Trump’s eligibility is not limited to New Hampshire. Secretaries of state in Arizona, Florida, New Mexico, Ohio, and Wisconsin have received letters from the liberal-leaning group Free Speech for the People, urging them to bar Trump from the ballot under the 14th Amendment. Officials in these states are carefully considering the issue and seeking legal guidance.
While the disqualification theory is appealing to liberals who view Trump as a threat, it has gained traction in conservative circles as well. Bryant Messner, a former Republican candidate for Senate in New Hampshire, is seeking to create case law around the issue. Messner met with New Hampshire’s secretary of state to urge him to seek legal guidance on the matter.
The precedent for disqualification under the 14th Amendment is not settled. A case against Representative Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina ended with a district court judge ruling in favor of Cawthorn, but the decision was later overruled by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Other cases involving Republican representatives accused of being insurrectionists were dropped or ruled in favor of the defendants.
Advocates of the disqualification clause fear that judges and secretaries of state may delay any case against Trump until the criminal cases charging him with trying to overturn the 2020 election are resolved. However, some secretaries of state, like Brad Raffensperger of Georgia, believe that voters should have the right to decide elections and will follow the appropriate procedures for candidate challenges.
The debate over Trump’s eligibility under the 14th Amendment is likely to continue, with New Hampshire at the forefront of the fight. Republicans in the state have vowed to fight any effort to remove Trump or any other candidate from the ballot, emphasizing that the people of New Hampshire should decide the nominee, not the courts.Is Trump Disqualified? Republicans Prepare to Fight Long-Shot Legal Theory
New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation primary has become the center of a heated debate among Republicans over whether former President Donald J. Trump is disqualified from running for president under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The debate has sparked discussions in other states as well, as Republicans and Democrats alike watch closely.
The controversy stems from a long-shot legal theory that argues Trump’s actions on January 6, 2021, during the Capitol insurrection, disqualify him from holding office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. This section prohibits individuals who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States from holding office if they previously took an oath to support the Constitution.
The theory gained momentum after two conservative law professors published an article supporting the disqualification argument. However, even proponents of the theory acknowledge that it faces significant legal hurdles. If a secretary of state were to strike Trump’s name from the ballot or if a voter lawsuit were to advance, Trump’s campaign would likely appeal the decision, potentially leading to a Supreme Court battle.
The New Hampshire Republican Party has already stated that it will fight any attempt to remove Trump or any other candidate who meets the requirements from the ballot. They argue that the people of New Hampshire should have the final say in choosing their nominee, not the courts.
Former Republican candidate for Senate in New Hampshire, Bryant Messner, has met with the state’s secretary of state to urge him to seek legal guidance on the issue. Messner, a self-described constitutional conservative, believes that the issue should be resolved through the court system and ultimately brought before the Supreme Court.
While the disqualification theory has gained traction among liberals who view Trump as a threat, most of the recent momentum has come from conservative circles. However, previous cases involving insurrectionist candidates, such as Representative Madison Cawthorn and Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, have had mixed outcomes, with some courts ruling in favor of the candidates and others ruling against them.
The debate over Trump’s eligibility under the 14th Amendment is likely to continue, with secretaries of state in various states seeking legal guidance on the issue. Ultimately, the decision may rest with the courts, and the outcome could have significant implications for future presidential elections.
Advertisement
What legal hurdles does the disqualification theory face in relation to Trump’s eligibility under the 14th Amendment?
Ing office if they previously took an oath to support the Constitution.
The theory gained momentum after two conservative law professors published an article supporting the disqualification argument. However, even proponents of the theory acknowledge that it faces significant legal hurdles. If a secretary of state were to strike Trump’s name from the ballot or if a voter lawsuit were to advance, Trump’s campaign would likely appeal the decision, potentially leading to a Supreme Court battle.
The debate over Trump’s eligibility is not limited to New Hampshire. Secretaries of state in Arizona, Florida, New Mexico, Ohio, and Wisconsin have received letters from the liberal-leaning group Free Speech for the People, urging them to bar Trump from the ballot under the 14th Amendment. Officials in these states are carefully considering the issue and seeking legal guidance.
While the disqualification theory is appealing to liberals who view Trump as a threat, it has gained traction in conservative circles as well. Bryant Messner, a former Republican candidate for Senate in New Hampshire, is seeking to create case law around the issue. Messner met with New Hampshire’s secretary of state to urge him to seek legal guidance on the matter.
The precedent for disqualification under the 14th Amendment is not settled. A case against Representative Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina ended with a district court judge ruling in favor of Cawthorn, but the decision was later overruled by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Other cases involving Republican representatives accused of being insurrectionists were dropped or ruled in favor of the defendants.
Advocates of the disqualification clause fear that judges and secretaries of state may delay any case against Trump until the criminal cases charging him with trying to overturn the 2020 election are resolved. However, some secretaries of state, like Brad Raffensperger of Georgia, believe that voters should have the right to decide elections and will follow the appropriate procedures for candidate challenges.
The debate over Trump’s eligibility under the 14th Amendment is likely to continue, with New Hampshire at the forefront of the fight. Republicans in the state have vowed to fight any effort to remove Trump or any other candidate from the ballot, emphasizing that the people of New Hampshire should decide the nominee, not the courts.
