LISTEN HERE:
Legal commentator Harold Lawley voices his view that the methodologies implemented by Maine Secretary of State, Shenna Bellows, to disqualify the ex-President Donald Trump from the Republican primary ballot might falter under legal scrutiny. Bellows defended her decision by stating it was based on the same merits the Colorado Supreme Court used.
She implies that if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the Colorado decision, it would consequently invalidate her ruling against Trump too. However, Lawley argues that the way she utilized snippets from YouTube to determine the ex-president’s association with insurrection and consequently disqualify him from the ballot would not withstand court examination.
During the discussion, broadcast presenter Charles Day questioned, ‘The Third Section of the 14th Amendment explicitly states that if a person partakes in an insurrection, they’re barred from holding public office. Bellows interprets it to mean that if she determines Trump to have instigated an insurrection, he should not be allowed to be a part of the Maine primary ballot. Is the matter that simple?’ Lawley responded that the legal complexities involved in this case couldn’t be oversimplified.
‘Indeed, the 14th Amendment’s Section 3 states that involvement in insurrection results in disqualification. However, the real challenge lies in deciding who has the authority to enforce this punitive measure, and the process to be followed,’ Lawley expounded. ‘Bellows highlights in her decision that she followed the same legal logic employed by the Colorado Supreme Court recently. She states that if the Colorado judgment is overturned, her ruling would automatically succumb to the same fate.’
Lawley continued, ‘Let’s consider the arguments from both ends. We’re treading on uncharted legal terrain. The case’s counterargument is primarily based on the 5th Section of the 14th Amendment, which allocates the authority to Congress to enact laws in accordance to Section 3. Congress exercised this power, leading to criminal laws being enacted. The opposition believes this implies that only Congress, and not individual states, have this jurisdiction.’
‘Yet, a potential counter to this stands – as touted by the Maine Secretary of State and Colorado – that state governments can also enforce this law. If so, the next focus should be whether the proceedings followed to this end were fair and compliant with due process,’ added Lawley.
Casting doubts on Maine’s process, he pointed out, ‘There’s a significant debate about the fairness of Maine’s hearings. As detailed in the final ruling, they referenced a plethora of documents, video fragments from YouTube, news articles, and the like, the admissibility of which is questionable in a standard court setting. It must be acknowledged that the Secretary of State from Maine is not a professional lawyer but an appointed, undemocratically-elected state legislator, per Maine’s regulations.’
‘While not a trial, these hearings ideally should adhere to an acceptable standard of fairness. I anticipate the critique from dissenters will underscore two major points – firstly, that states don’t have the jurisdiction to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment; and secondly, the procedural inadequacies of the hearings conducted,’ he explained.
He later added, ‘Given the increased prominence of this issue, I reckon that the Supreme Court will sooner or later be compelled to examine this case. The recent ruling in Maine only heightens this probability.’
Lawley ventured to forecast that the apex court will not delve into whether or not Trump was involved in an ‘insurrection’, but rather focus on the legality of the states’ decisions to bar him from appearing on the presidential ballot.
In essence, the critique is centered around debate over jurisdiction, protocol adherence, and the compelling question – did Bellows, despite not being a lawyer, exhibit a rightful understanding of law to disqualify Trump based on insurrection charges?
This commentary raises significant points concerning the role of state and federal governments in penalizing past officials. In essence, it calls into question whether states possess the right to enforce such federal-level legal provisions as laid out by the 14th Amendment.
Further, it scrutinizes the procedures adopted by various state secretaries in making such crucial decisions. Does inadequate due process stand as a significant flaw undermining these rulings? This debate undoubtedly warrants the Supreme Court’s attention.
The interpretation of constitutional amendments is a complex task. It calls for a careful deliberation of not only the letter, but also the spirit of the law. It’s of vital importance that the proceedings should be fair, just, and are carried out by the appropriate bodies.
This piece draws attention to the heart of the matter – the constitutional interpretation by non-judicial officers. Dissecting the legal grounds and processes to bar a former president from running for public office, when the alleged misconduct is as significant as insurrection, is truly unmarked territory in legal theory and practice. Despite the disparate viewpoints, it is likely we’ll see the Supreme Court intervene to provide clarity.
