Trump, whose front-running Republican candidacy could be threatened, appealed the Maine decision by Democrat Shenna Bellows, who became the first secretary of state in history to bar someone from running for the presidency under the rarely used Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. That provision prohibits those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office.
The former president is expected to soon appeal a similar ban by the Colorado Supreme Court. That appeal would go to the U.S. Supreme Court, while Bellows’ action is being appealed to a Maine Superior Court.
Trump’s appeal on Tuesday asks that Bellows be required to place him on the March 5 primary ballot. The appeal argues that she abused her discretion and relied on “untrustworthy evidence.”
It’s always interesting when the journalist points out that the use of the insurrection clause in the 14th amendment is rare. Well so is insurrection. And from the readily available, and demonstratively trustworthy evidence it is clear the insurrection continues.
I think it’s fair to point out it’s a rarely used law, as it’s indicative of exceptional circumstances.
Exceptional circumstances like Trump being elected President of the United States and trying to steal the following election?
With the assistance of Russia and China, as a way to destabilize the USA, and destroy democracy, perhaps? But that’s not how the article emphasized things.
I think the added context is important. Rarely enforced laws sometimes are stupid old laws that only get pulled out as attacks and sometimes they’re part of the structural integrity of your society but they’re rarely broken. One side of the political aisle is convinced this situation is the former.
Yeah, they always fail to specify that second part, as if a thousand redneck assholes perpetrating a domestic terrorist attack at the US Capitol is a common thing.
The appeal argues that she abused her discretion and relied on “untrustworthy evidence.”
Like her eyes and ears. /s
Her interview on npr was very informative on the process and her involvement.
She didn’t submit the challenge. She didn’t pick the evidence. She was required by law to hold a hearing and render a decision. Then she immediately put the decision on hold for judicial review.
Can you link it? I’d like to listen.
I dare you to not stare into the starfish in his neck.
You did it, didn’t you? That’s four more years of bad luck. Thanks allot.
The brown eye met the eye, and the eye wished for bleach
I have the urge to pop a cigarette in there like that old anti-smoking commercial, where the lady takes a drag thru her tracheostomy
Is “the emperor’s new clothes” on the banned book list in the South?
It’s a pretty easy read, if anyone down there wants a crack at it I’ll buy them a copy.
