Published December 29, 2023
With states moving to ban former President Donald Trump from appearing on ballots, a quick resolution must be reached in the Supreme Court concerning the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and how it applies to the upcoming presidential primaries, former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano told Newsmax on Friday.
“State constitutions mean different things in different states,” Napolitano told Newsmax’s “Wake Up America.” “All of this begs for a final — and Chief Justice [John] Roberts, if you’re listening — quick resolution so that we all know what the law is, and we all know how the 14th Amendment is going to be applied.”
Napolitano’s comments come after Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, Thursday removed Trump from the state’s presidential primary ballot, citing the Constitution’s 14th Amendment Civil War-era insurrection clause.
“I was a little dumbfounded by it because this is a decision made by an appointed state official, the secretary of state, after no charges were filed, after no trial, after no hearing, after no investigation, just on the basis of which she perceived happened on Jan. 6,” said Napolitano.
“Maine, Michigan, California, Colorado, all of those states … are interpreting a clause in the U.S. Constitution and each is interpreting it differently.”
There is a principle of law, federal supremacy, which means that the U.S. Constitution can’t have different meanings in different states, he added.
“[Bellows] does have the authority to do this,” Napolitano said. “This is a defect in the system. An individual should not have this authority.”
READ FULL ARTICLE
SOURCE: https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/andrew-napolitano-ban-donald-trump/2023/12/29/id/1147586/
RELATED: More States May Try to Block Trump From Ballot Unless SCOTUS Acts, Professor Warns
Former President Donald Trump arrives at Trump Tower the day after FBI agents raided his Mar-a-Lago Palm Beach home, in New York City on Aug. 9, 2022. (David ‘Dee’ Delgado/Reuters)
Published December 29, 2023
A prominent law professor warned that more states may act against the former president.
A law professor warned that more states and courts may move to block former President Donald Trump from appearing on state ballots for the 2024 election unless the U.S. Supreme Court acts.
Thursday’s ruling from Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, to block the former president from appearing on the state’s ballot demonstrates the need for the nation’s highest court to clarify what states can do.
“It is clear that these decisions are going to keep popping up, and inconsistent decisions reached (like the many states keeping Trump on the ballot over challenges) until there is final and decisive guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court,” Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California-Los Angeles, wrote in response. “It seems a certainty that SCOTUS will have to address the merits sooner or later,” he added, referring to the U.S. Supreme Court.
And he wrote that “sooner is much better than later for the rights of voters to not be infringed and for the political stability of the country.”
Ms. Bellows was the first top election official to unilaterally strike a presidential candidate from the ballot under that provision. Last week, a majority of judges on the Colorado Supreme Court issued a ruling that also blocked the former president from appearing on the primary ballot, although it was confirmed by Colorado’s secretary of state that he will be included.
On Thursday, CNN legal analyst Elie Honig, in response to the Maine secretary of state’s decision, noted that she “heard from one fact witness, a law professor” and also “based her ruling on a lot of documents, but also YouTube clips, news reports, things that would never pass the bar in normal court.”
READ FULL ARTICLE
SOURCE: www.theepochtimes.com
RELATED: Supreme Court could save or erode the Constitution in Colorado ballot case
Former President and presidential hopeful Donald Trump during a campaign event in Waterloo, Iowa, on Dec. 19. Kamil Krzaczyanski, AFP Via Getty Images
Published December 29, 2023
The claim that the Colorado ruling infringes on voters’ rights to decide presidential eligibility is ironic, considering that former President Donald Trump’s average disapproval ratings have consistently exceeded 50% since he left office.
If the immediate practical question before the courts — whether the former president should be allowed to run again — were actually put to voters, they might well vote to bar him. But they will have no opportunity to cast that vote.
The crucial question for the U.S. Supreme Court is how to implement the explicit constitutional language barring office-holders who have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the Constitution after taking an oath to support it.
What qualifies as an “insurrection?”
While the Confederacy’s attempt to overturn the Constitution had access to immeasurably greater resources, it also had a limited goal, seeking not to break the core processes of the national government but instead to secede and remove itself from those processes.
It is plausible that the framers of the 14th Amendment would regard today’s facts, as summarized by the Colorado courts, to be both unimaginable in 1868 and disqualifying for the presidency.
READ FULL ARTICLE
SOURCE: www.azcentral.com
