DEVASTATING Amicus Brief BURIES Trump with A HISTORY LESSON - Meidas Touch

[Rhiannon12866]

On the Legal AF podcast, national trial attorney Michael Popok and former prosecutor Karen Friedman Agnifilo debate the new compelling “Civil War” arguments sent to the Supreme Court by 25 top civil war and law historians and another dozen former Republican judges and administration senior officials, all telling the Supremes that the drafters of the 14th Amendment would have banned Trump from the ballot as an insurrectionist. - 02/03/2024.

[KS Toronado]

1. The simple fact that Colorado voted 4 to 3 when it should have been 7 to 0

after reading the insurrection act tells me we have quite a few Judges in this Country who believe party is
more important than the written law.

If the S. C. comes up with some lame excuse to keep Тяцмp on the ballot, it will divide this Country like
never before and would be an indication our Judicial system needs overhauled.

Plus we should be looking into the Judges bank accounts etc. to see if some entity is buying them off. We
know repugs love their money and enjoy spreading it around to buy/get what they want.

[Martin Eden]

2. If Trump is not on the ballot, will MAGATs vote for Haley in the general election?

My concern is that the Republican nominee retains Trump voters AND picks up swing voters in crucial battleground states, we could lose the White House.

I think Biden has a better chance to beat Trump, who is a rotting albatros around the neck of the Republican Party.

[Justice matters.]

3. His fascist cultists will write his name on write-in lines (or message boxes...).

(or in whatever ways to write-in names are provided by electronic voting machines... if any...).

[LetMyPeopleVote]

4. Historians support voters against Trump in Colorado ballot case

Lawrence O'Donnell discussed this amicus brief last night. These historians are a far better source of history compared to the two witch hunters cited by Alito in the Dobbs opinion

Link to tweet

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/trump-14th-amendment-ballot-historians-brief-rcna136148

The amicus brief from 25 professional scholars with expertise in 19th-century American history explains that the 14th Amendment’s disqualification clause in Section 3 covers the president and doesn’t require further congressional action to keep insurrectionists from office. While those aren’t the only issues in the case, they’re big ones that further support upholding the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision disqualifying the former president.

To take one historical example that the brief illuminates, Trump and his supporters have latched on to the fact that the clause doesn’t specifically mention presidents. Section 3 says:

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, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

To explain why the section nonetheless covers presidents, the historians point to congressional debate at the time of the amendment, in which a senator questioned why presidents were being excluded. The historians recalled that an influential backer of the amendment noted that the section incorporated the president, replying: “Let me call the Senator’s attention to the words ‘or hold any office civil or military under the United States.’” The initial senator “admitted his error” and no other senator “questioned whether Section 3 covered the President,” the historians wrote.

The implication, then, is that for the Supreme Court to hold that the clause doesn’t cover the president would contravene the historical record. This wouldn’t be the first time that the court would be doing so, but the brief is a reminder that the court should have to find another avenue if the justices are intent on keeping Trump on the ballot. A convincing avenue for doing so is still unclear ahead of next week’s oral arguments, but the Feb. 8 hearing may signal where the court is headed.

[Rhiannon12866]

5. Thank you! This was definitive and should have been the end of it!

[LetMyPeopleVote]

6. This is from the author of Deadline White House legal blog

The briefing in this case is excellent and if the SCOTUS follows the law and history, then TFG will be disqualified

Link to tweet

[Rhiannon12866]

8. Thank you and this is important - I don't remember seeing him among the show's video uploads

Here's hoping that this can convince SCOTUS.

[MagaSmash]

7. This isn't a Deep and Complex Decision. You Just have to have EYES.

[Rhiannon12866]

9. And take the time to read...