Anti-Trump demonstrators protest outside the U.S. Supreme Court as the court considers whether Donald Trump is eligible to run for president in the 2024 election in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 8.heard arguments on Thursday in the case over whether states can toss Donald Trump off their ballots. Much of the discussion centered around a wildly inane legal question: whether America’s president qualifies as “an officer of the United States.
On the other hand, the justices did not all appear to buy one of Trump lawyer Jonathan Mitchell’s primary arguments — that the president is exempt from the 14th Amendment’s definition of “officers” of the United States. “President Trump is not covered by Section 3 because the president is not an officer of the United States,” Mitchell said, adding that there are “officers who don’t hold offices.
The conservative judges, however, pushed back strongly against Murray. In his questioning, Roberts seemed wholly unconvinced that the 14th Amendment allowed states to disqualify a candidate on the basis of insurrection, describing the argument as “a position that is at war with the whole thrust of the 14th Amendment.”
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Supreme Court Sides with Biden Administration in Dispute with Texas over Razor WireThe Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Biden administration in its dispute with Texas over razor wire along the Rio Grande. The court cleared the way for Border Patrol to cut through the wire, which the administration says endangers migrants.
Source: ExpressNews - 🏆 519. / 51 Read more »
Source: chicagotribune - 🏆 8. / 91 Read more »
Source: MSTODAYnews - 🏆 275. / 63 Read more »
Source: CBSNews - 🏆 87. / 68 Read more »
Source: AKpublicnews - 🏆 387. / 55 Read more »
Source: HuffPostWomen - 🏆 27. / 68 Read more »