The commencement of significant hearings took place on Monday within a Colorado courtroom, focusing on an innovative proposal to permanently disqualify former President Donald Trump from assuming office in the White House. This proposal is based on a contentious assertion related to a provision of the 14th Amendment.
The plaintiffs in the complaint contend that it is necessary to prohibit Trump from seeking federal electoral office due to his purported activities on January 6, 2021. On that day, a disturbance ensued at the U.S. Capitol facility subsequent to a speech delivered by Trump in Washington, D.C., in close proximity to the aforementioned facility. The disturbance has been characterized as a “insurrection” by Democrats and certain Republicans, who attribute the incitement of the crowd to Trump. Trump has not faced any charges related to that particular crime.
According to ABC News, a comparable hearing is scheduled to commence on Thursday in the state of Minnesota. According to the source, the outlet includes:
On Monday morning in Denver, a historic five-day evidentiary hearing got underway for a lawsuit filed against Trump by six Republican and unaffiliated Colorado voters, represented by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
CREW President Noah Bookbinder has said that his organization brought its suit in Colorado because “it is necessary to defend our republic both today and in the future.” The group’s complaint accuses Trump of inciting and aiding the mob at the Capitol two years ago, which he denies. He was impeached on similar charges but acquitted by Republicans in the Senate.
For an extended period, Trump has refuted any involvement in sedition or revolt. Regarding the 14th Amendment cases, a representative for his campaign recently declared, “Those who are pursuing this ridiculous conspiracy theory and political attack on President Trump are stretching the law beyond recognition.”
Along with hundreds of politicians inside the building, including far-left Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), attorneys for CREW called two Capitol Police officers who were present that day.
“The events on Jan. 6, 2021, in the United States Capitol were horrific. It was a terrorist attack on the United States of America, an assault on democracy and an attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power,” one of the officers, Danny Hodges, speculated.
In their opening statement, a CREW attorney asserted that, “Trump incited a violent mob to attack our Capitol to stop the peaceful transfer of power under our Constitution. … And we are here because Trump claims after all that he has the right to be president again.”
CNN reports that another “longshot” 14th Amendment case filed by “John Anthony Castro, a little-known Republican presidential candidate, was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year. He sued Trump to try and have him disqualified from the presidency because of his alleged support of the insurrectionists and convicted criminals who violently attacked our United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.”
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits anybody who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or “given aid or comfort” to insurrectionists from holding federal political office, is the foundation of his case as well as the cases of others. Following the Civil War, three amendments were ratified, including this one. In the amendment’s history, this clause has only been applied twice, both times against former Confederates.
In an August Federalist column, John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and a former deputy assistant attorney general for the United States, and Robert Delahunty, a Fellow of the Claremont Institute’s Center for the American Way of Life, contended that it will ultimately be impossible to use the 14th Amendment to prevent Trump from taking office.
They both concur that the amendment’s “insurrection clause” is still applicable today, but they disagreed with legal experts who think Trump is covered by it.
“While their theory about the continuing relevance of the Constitution’s insurrection clause strikes us as correct, they err in believing that anyone, down to the lowest county election worker, has the right to strike Trump from the ballot,” they wrote.