LISTEN HERE:
New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan (R) is currently considering a move to exclude Donald Trump, the leading Republican presidential candidate and 45th President from the ballot in his state. This revelation has caught the attention of many.
Scanlan is contemplating this action based on a legal interpretation that questions Trump’s eligibility under the 14th Amendment. Seeking expert opinions and legal guidance, Scanlan wants to ensure a fair decision is made.
He intends to consult his in-house staff attorneys, as well as the attorney general’s office to gather all the necessary information. This decision will likely require judicial input, demonstrating the importance of approaching the matter carefully.
It came to light that a group of legal scholars has put forth a theory suggesting that Donald Trump’s actions following the 2020 election make him ineligible to hold the presidency again.
Receive a FREE Gift for Subscribing to the Newsletter!
The idea, popularized in an article from The Atlantic, stresses the significance of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment known as the disqualification clause. Authored by J. Michael Luttig and Laurence H. Tribe, the article titled ‘The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again’ argues that Trump’s conduct conflicts with this constitutional section.
The scholars reference another academic paper, ‘The Sweep and Force of Section Three,’ by William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, to emphasize that no criminal conviction is necessary to invoke the disqualification clause.
The question arises of how the Supreme Court would define ‘insurrection or rebellion’ mentioned in Section 3 if a secretary of state, potentially from an opposing party, were to declare Trump ineligible for the 2024 presidential ballot.
The determination of this classification would rest with the court. Luttig and Tribe conclude their piece by asserting that if Trump were to be reelected, the American people’s trust in his commitment to uphold his oath could be severely compromised, given his post-2020 election actions.
Reacting to the article, Charlie Kirk criticized Luttig and Tribe and accused them of harboring a sinister agenda. He argued that these left-wing law professors represent a greater threat to democratic elections and the Constitution than anyone else.
Kirk highlighted the argument made by these professors that the 14th Amendment prevents Trump from running without any criminal conviction, implying that Trump is presumed guilty until proven innocent.
Kirk suspects that swing-state officials like Adrian Fontes in Arizona or Jocelyn Benson in Michigan could collaborate to remove Trump from the ballot, making the 2024 election extremely challenging for him to win.
Despite these arguments, legal experts point out that historical instances already exist where a presidential candidate faced charges and was still allowed on the ballot. Eugene Debs, a candidate in the 1920 election, was charged, convicted, and imprisoned for sedition but was not denied access to the ballot
. This historical precedent exposes a flaw in Luttig’s theory. Furthermore, the 14th Amendment’s Section 3 does not explicitly mention the president, raising doubts about its applicability to the office of the presidency.
Looking ahead, the 2024 election carries enormous significance that could reshape history. The potential scenario of Democratic officials taking actions to exclude Trump from the ballot would undoubtedly erode public trust in the democratic process.
It is essential that such drastic measures do not come to pass and that voters can exercise their right to choose the leader who will govern the nation for the next four years.
Receive a FREE Gift for Subscribing to the Newsletter!
