Trump argues First Amendment protects him from 'insurrection' cases aimed at keeping him off ballot

apnews.com Trump argues First Amendment protects him from 'insurrection' cases aimed at keeping him off ballot

Lawyers for former President Donald Trump are arguing that attempts to kick him off the presidential ballot under a rarely used constitutional clause for engaging in “insurrection” are improper attempts to interfere with his freedom of speech.

DENVER (AP) — Attorneys for former President Donald Trump argue that an attempt to bar him from the 2024 ballot under a rarely used “insurrection” clause of the Constitution should be dismissed as a violation of his freedom of speech.
The lawyers made the argument in a filing posted Monday by a Colorado court in the most significant of a series of challenges to Trump’s candidacy under the Civil War-era clause in the 14th Amendment. The challenges rest on Trump’s attempts to overturn his 2020 loss to Democrat Joe Biden and his role leading up to the violent Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Politics @kbin.social

Madison_rogue @kbin.social

1y ago

News

Trump argues First Amendment protects him from 'insurrection' cases aimed at keeping him off ballot

apnews.com /article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-speech-colorado-9626b6ae8479e6a4ce34c3391f207426

9 2

28 comments

Countdown to getting this argument shot down in court in 3... 2... 1... Where does he keep finding these incompetent lawyers? They continue to use the shotgun effect, just shoot and hope you hit something. When will they start getting disbarred?
- The mountains of evidence and public statements that support his guilt don't give the lawyers much to work with.
- Difference here is this isn't a lawsuit that they're bringing, they're frantically trying to defend against the case brought against Trump. Having a bad defense isn't really something you can disbar a lawyer for, unlike filing a bad lawsuit. But this is Trump we're talking about, I'm sure he'll find a way to get his lawyers to commit perjury or some other ethics violation before the case is over or else they'll be replaced with lawyers who will.
  
  How anyone even remotely wants to work with him boggles the mind. It really is a cult.

Oh he can talk all he wants. He just can't be elected, lol.
- Absolutely. Not being allowed to stand for office does not conflict or restrict his freedom of speech rights.
  It's like a non us citizen saying the "natural born citizen" clause in the constitution conflicts with their right to free speech.
  
  Don't be mistaken–being disqualified from standing for election is a restriction on his right to free political speech. However, this is a permissible restriction on free speech because the constitution (Amendment XIV) deems that those who engaged in insurrection should not be able to serve in office.
  Trump's argument is similar to arguing that slavery is legal because it says so in the original constitution...disregarding the fact that a future amendment changed that.

So what are the actual outcomes that we might see? The courts eventually ruling that trump can't be tossed out for insurrection until he is convicted of a crime analogous to or part of insurrection? The courts saying individual states' electoral commissions/agencies can declare someone as an insurrectionist and block them? Or will the supreme court give their buddy a pat on the back and a treat, and say a conviction for insurrection has to be done at the federal level, if not outright declared by congress or some such stupidity?
- No, I heard this back on reddit. Some Trumpbro was trying to argue that J6 wasn't an insurrection, that it was a protest.
  Whelp, what shitty luck you planned your protest to coincide with the certifying of the election results, you insurrectionist turnip.
  This is going nowhere.
  
  The civil war was a disagreement about the use of farm equipment.
- Ok, the 14th is dependent and enables congress to pass legislation to enforce this, and that legislation cannot be ruled unconstitutional unless its exceptionally egregious in some manner, even if it would otherwise violate their constitutional rights otherwise.
  Congress can pass a law today saying DJT and anyone affiliated cannot hold or even run for office and scotus would have to accept it (probably, they do decide what this amendment says a little).
  Section 5
  The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
  
  So is that the only real answer (ha, real from this court... ) that should be arrived at? Perhaps a criminal conviction for the actual crime of treason would satisfy, but the only other option per the amendment is congress enforcing the article?

Ahh yes, the same way the First Amendment protects you from yelling “Fire” in a theater, it can protect you from anything else you say or do in life.

Look out people, we got ourselves a legal scholar here...
- He knows all the laws, the best laws. laws that you've never heard of.

This is the best summary I could come up with:
DENVER (AP) — Attorneys for former President Donald Trump argue that an attempt to bar him from the 2024 ballot under a rarely used “insurrection” clause of the Constitution should be dismissed as a violation of his freedom of speech.
The lawyers made the argument in a filing posted Monday by a Colorado court in the most significant of a series of challenges to Trump’s candidacy under the Civil War-era clause in the 14th Amendment.
The former president’s lawyers also said the challenge should be dismissed because he is not yet a candidate under the meaning of Colorado election law, which they contend isn’t intended to settle constitutional disputes.
Whatever Wallace rules, the issue is likely to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, which has never heard a case on the provision of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, three years after the Civil War ended.
Prosecutors in those cases and some legal experts have noted that Trump’s offenses go beyond speech, to acts such as trying to organize slates of fake electors that Congress could have recognized to make him president again.
On Friday, Wallace issued an order barring threats and intimidation in the case after the plaintiffs noted that Trump has targeted lawyers and witnesses in the criminal proceedings against him.
The original article contains 518 words, the summary contains 214 words. Saved 59%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

This is awesome:
"You can't charge me with the 14th because I plead the 1st!"

I’m the event of any conflict, the 14th amendment is more recent and supersedes the 1st.

- It is silly, but I'm pretty sure the order of the amendments doesn't really factor in. It's a problem if two amendments are in conflict with each other, and generally if the intent of a later amendment was to modify some aspect of a prior one, it explicitly does so by specifying what parts of the previous amendment are modified, removed, or added to (although the only time I'm aware of that that applied was when the 21st amendment repealed the 18th amendment). Generally the amendments are additive and no particular ordering is implied.
  
  Actually neat thing about the 14th amendment. It gives rise to the doctrine of Incorporation of the Bill of Rights.
  The 14th amendment fundamentally modified the separation of Federal and State governments a bit, which makes sense given the background of the whole “it’s a result of the Confederates losing the Civil War.”
  However all this said, the first amendment doesn’t extend into infinity. No right does that. The various Courts have agreed that speech is not protected in the commission of a crime.
- That isn't how it works at all.
- FWIW there haven't been any cases about the constitution contradicting itself to my knowledge.
  https://www.quora.com/Does-the-U-S-Constitution-contradict-itself-in-any-place
  https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstractid=3948165
  https://hls.harvard.edu/today/brilliant-and-highly-flawed/
- [citation needed]

28 comments