We are not surprised that three of the justices on the Supreme Court who favor an evolving view of the Constitution would refuse to enforce a little-known provision of the 14th Amendment that has never before been employed during a presidential election.
These justices stripped pregnant women of their rights without even acknowledging that women in states with abortion bans would die of sepsis while waiting for a fetal heart to stop. And yet, the justices spent a few sad paragraphs at the end of their ruling in Trump v. Anderson lamenting the harm that would occur were former President Donald Trump to be kicked off the ballot in Colorado.
Amendment 14 Section 3 could not be clearer: “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion.”
The court ruled in Brown: “Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.” That four justices ruled narrowly against employing a novel legal argument on a state-by-state basis to keep an insurrectionist from running for president is being considered a win by Trump’s supporters.
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.
Source: RollingStone - 🏆 483. / 51 Read more »
Source: NPR - 🏆 96. / 63 Read more »
Source: NBCNews - 🏆 10. / 86 Read more »
Source: cnnbrk - 🏆 393. / 55 Read more »
Source: CBSNews - 🏆 87. / 68 Read more »
Source: CBSNewYork - 🏆 268. / 63 Read more »