148
submitted 6 months ago by girlfreddy@lemmy.ca to c/news@lemmy.world

Trump, whose front-running Republican candidacy could be threatened, appealed the Maine decision by Democrat Shenna Bellows, who became the first secretary of state in history to bar someone from running for the presidency under the rarely used Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. That provision prohibits those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office.

The former president is expected to soon appeal a similar ban by the Colorado Supreme Court. That appeal would go to the U.S. Supreme Court, while Bellows’ action is being appealed to a Maine Superior Court.

Trump’s appeal on Tuesday asks that Bellows be required to place him on the March 5 primary ballot. The appeal argues that she abused her discretion and relied on “untrustworthy evidence.”

top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] DigitalNirvana@lemm.ee 63 points 6 months ago

It’s always interesting when the journalist points out that the use of the insurrection clause in the 14th amendment is rare. Well so is insurrection. And from the readily available, and demonstratively trustworthy evidence it is clear the insurrection continues.

[-] phx@lemmy.ca 16 points 6 months ago

I think it's fair to point out it's a rarely used law, as it's indicative of exceptional circumstances.

[-] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 17 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Exceptional circumstances like Trump being elected President of the United States and trying to steal the following election?

[-] DigitalNirvana@lemm.ee 6 points 6 months ago

With the assistance of Russia and China, as a way to destabilize the USA, and destroy democracy, perhaps? But that’s not how the article emphasized things.

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

I think the added context is important. Rarely enforced laws sometimes are stupid old laws that only get pulled out as attacks and sometimes they’re part of the structural integrity of your society but they’re rarely broken. One side of the political aisle is convinced this situation is the former.

[-] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago

Yeah, they always fail to specify that second part, as if a thousand redneck assholes perpetrating a domestic terrorist attack at the US Capitol is a common thing.

[-] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 50 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The appeal argues that she abused her discretion and relied on “untrustworthy evidence.”

Like her eyes and ears. /s

[-] toiletobserver@lemmy.world 49 points 6 months ago

Her interview on npr was very informative on the process and her involvement.

She didn't submit the challenge. She didn't pick the evidence. She was required by law to hold a hearing and render a decision. Then she immediately put the decision on hold for judicial review.

[-] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I dare you to not stare into the starfish in his neck.

You did it, didn't you? That's four more years of bad luck. Thanks allot.

[-] HootinNHollerin@slrpnk.net 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The brown eye met the eye, and the eye wished for bleach

[-] HootinNHollerin@slrpnk.net 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I have the urge to pop a cigarette in there like that old anti-smoking commercial, where the lady takes a drag thru her tracheostomy

[-] Donjuanme@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

Is "the emperor's new clothes" on the banned book list in the South?

It's a pretty easy read, if anyone down there wants a crack at it I'll buy them a copy.

this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2024
148 points (93.0% liked)

News

21706 readers
4388 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS