The drive to eliminate former President Donald Trump from state ballots in the upcoming 2024 election is intensifying nationwide.
Is Trump Constitutionally Ineligible To Serve as President?
Critics contend that Trump’s involvement in the Capitol attack renders him constitutionally ineligible to serve as president, sparking a heated debate on both sides of the aisle.
Despite Trump’s commanding lead in the GOP primaries, he now faces four distinct indictments spanning the East Coast.
These charges include alleged offenses like hush money, mishandling classified documents, election interference, and racketeering.
Trump vehemently denies any wrongdoing, labeling the charges part of a politically motivated “witch hunt” orchestrated by the Biden administration and Democratic prosecutors.
Trump’s Participation in the January 6 Capitol Incident Bars Him From Future Office
Adversaries from various political backgrounds argue that, according to the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Trump’s participation in the January 6 Capitol incident bars him from future office.
Lawrence Caplan, a Florida tax attorney, recently became the first to challenge Trump’s presidential candidacy in federal court.
He pointed to the Amendment’s “disqualification clause,” which stipulates that those who have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the government are ineligible for office.
Caplan asserted, “The bottom line here is that President Trump both engaged in an insurrection and gave aid and comfort to other individuals engaging in such actions, within the clear meaning of those terms as defined in Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
The Disqualification Clause
He went on to challenge Trump’s eligibility for office and questioned his ability to run again.
The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, was designed to usher in a new era of freedom for previously marginalized citizens. The “disqualification clause,” initially meant to prevent former Confederacy members from holding office, could, in theory, be applied to those engaging in future insurrections against the U.S.
Two legal scholars associated with the conservative Federalist Society, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, endorsed the idea that this clause is “self-executing.”
They argued that any government official involved in planning, supporting, assisting, encouraging, endorsing, or aiding an insurrection, such as the events of January 6, should be constitutionally disqualified from holding office.
The Controversy Is Undeniable
Amidst the debate, former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson emphasized during the GOP presidential debate that he wouldn’t support someone “convicted of a serious felony or disqualified under our Constitution.”
Civil rights organizations Mi Familia Vota and Free Speech for People launched campaigns to pressure state officials to disqualify Trump from appearing on ballots in several states for the 2024 elections.
Additionally, former New Hampshire U.S. Senate candidate Bryant “Corky” Messner is working to challenge Trump’s candidacy at the state level.
… As the 2024 Election Season Draws Near
The controversy surrounding this move is undeniable. Critics, including Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz, argue that invoking the clause poses a risk to the Constitution by putting the decision about the president’s eligibility in the hands of officials rather than the people.
Despite the ongoing legal and ideological battles, the issue remains a central point of contention as the 2024 election season draws nearer.
What do you think? Let us know in the comments!
The post Trump’s 2024 Ambitions Teetering: Explosive Claims and Constitutional Clashes Threaten to Topple His Comeback! first appeared on The Net Worth Of.
Featured Image Credit: Shutterstock / Johnny Silvercloud. The people shown in the images are for illustrative purposes only, not the actual people featured in the story.
Source: The Hill