The 14th Amendment to the Constitution bans anyone who ā€œengaged in insurrection or rebellion againstā€ the U.S. from holding office.

A Florida lawyer is suing Donald Trump in an attempt to disqualify his current run for president. Lawrence A. Caplanā€™s Thursday lawsuit claims that the ex-presidentā€™s involvement in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot would make him ineligible to run again, thanks to the Constitutionā€™s 14th Amendmentā€”a Civil War-era addition aimed at preventing those who ā€œengaged in insurrection or rebellion againstā€ the U.S. from holding office. ā€œNow given that the facts seem to be crystal clear that Trump was involved to some extent in the insurrection that took place on January 6th, the sole remaining question is whether American jurists who swear an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution upon their entry to the bench, will choose to follow the letter of the Constitution in this case,ā€ the lawsuit says, also citing Trumpā€™s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia. Legal experts say itā€™s an uphill battle to argue in court, since the amendment has hardly been exercised in modern history. ā€œRealistically, itā€™s not a Hail Mary, but itā€™s just tossing the ball up and hoping it lands in the right place,ā€ Charles Zelden, a professor of history and legal studies at Nova Southeastern University, told the South Florida Sun Sentinel.

archive link to South Florida Sun Sentinel article: https://archive.ph/1BntD

  • perviouslyiner@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    Ā·
    10 months ago

    7 people were convicted already of seditious conspiracy, so either of the conspiracy charges connecting the former president with directing their actions would be pretty strong evidence.

    • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      Ā·
      10 months ago

      Maybe. Thatā€™s what the courts will need to decide. And without prior precedent supporting your argument itā€™s not as strong as perhaps you think.

      • perviouslyiner@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        Ā·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        agreed - I think it needs a conviction to occur before anyone can argue this.

        • bookmeat@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          Ā·
          10 months ago

          Except the conviction wonā€™t be for insurrection, but for some other related offense so heā€™ll get away with it on this technicality.