FLASH
Shkruar nga Pamfleti
In their Supreme Court briefing, Trump's lawyers claimed there would be "chaos and mayhem" in the US if a presidential front-runner is blocked from voting.
The US Supreme Court will hear the arguments of the parties today regarding the sensitive issue that may determine whether Donald Trump has the right to run for president this year.
The Donald J Trump Constitutional case came after 6 Colorado judges ruled that Trump was ineligible to run for president under a provision based on the 14th amendment to the constitution.
The provision states that any member of Congress or officer of the United States who takes an oath to defend the constitution and then engages in sedition is barred from holding office. The ban can only be overturned by a two-thirds vote from both houses of Congress.
Trump's conduct during the Capitol Hill attack disqualifies him from holding federal office, Colorado voters argued in their lawsuit filed last year in state court. After a five-day trial, a judge found that Trump was involved in the riot, but added that he was not an "officer of the United States" at the time and refused to remove him from the ballot.
In a decision later in December, by a vote of 4 to 23, the Colorado Supreme Court overturned that decision and barred Trump from the ballot. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in January.
While there have been several lawsuits seeking to remove Trump from the ballot, only Colorado and Maine have done so so far. A Maine judge last month ordered the Secretary of State there to halt Trump's expulsion until the US Supreme Court issues a ruling.
A ruling upholding the Colorado Supreme Court ruling would not automatically remove Trump from ballots across the country. While some states have opposed efforts to remove Trump from the primary ballot, a Supreme Court ruling that Trump can be disqualified would likely trigger a flurry of rapid challenges in state and other courts to disqualify him from the general election ballot. .
Trump is widely believed to have the upper hand on the court, where conservatives hold a 6-3 supermajority after Trump appointed three of the justices. However, experts say there is a high degree of uncertainty about exactly what the court will do because it has chosen not to limit the scope of arguments before it and the cases are so unprecedented.
In their Supreme Court briefing, Trump's lawyers claimed there would be "chaos and mayhem" in the US if a presidential front-runner is blocked from voting. They gave the judges a number of arguments why he should not be disqualified, including that the word "officer" does not apply to the president and that he was not involved in the uprising.
" In our system of 'government of the people, by the people, [and] for the people,' the American people should choose the next President of the United States, not the courts or election officials ," Trump's lawyers wrote.
Colorado voters, supported by the left-leaning nonprofit Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), argue that it is absurd to claim that the 14th Amendment does not apply to the presidency and that it would be a danger to democracy to allow it. him to hold office again.
" Section 3 was designed precisely to avoid empowering oath-breaking insurgents like Trump to unleash such chaos again. No one, not even a former president, is above the law" , they write.
There is no legal precedent in the case — the justices will wrestle with key issues in the showdown, including whether Trump committed sedition on Jan. 6 for the first time. The 14th Amendment was enacted after the Civil War to bar ex-Confederates from holding office and has never been used to bar a presidential candidate. In 2022, the amendment was used to remove a New Mexico county commissioner from office, the first time it had been used that way in a century.
The case marks the court's most direct intervention in a presidential election since its controversial Bush v. Gore decision in 2000. Seeking to maintain its reputation as an apolitical body, the court is usually reluctant to get involved in heated political disputes, but the advent of the Trump case makes the court's intervention in the most controversial political issues inevitable. This comes as public confidence in the court continues to decline amid a series of ethics scandals and politically charged decisions./ TheGuardian
Lini një Përgjigje