US Supreme Court to Decide Trump’s Ballot Eligibility
Supreme Court to Decide on Trump’s Eligibility for Office
By next month, the U.S. Supreme Court will have to make a decision on whether to take up a case regarding former President Donald Trump’s eligibility to run for office. This case stems from a lawsuit filed by a long-shot GOP presidential candidate, John Castro, who claims that Trump should be disqualified based on the 14th Amendment.
The justices have until Oct. 9 to render a decision in the case John Castro v. Donald Trump. Mr. Castro, a Texas attorney running for president, claimed in his petition that the former president should be disqualified due to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol breach, invoking allegations that Mr. Trump partook in an insurrection against the U.S. government.
Mr. Castro’s initial suit was dismissed in June by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who is also overseeing the classified documents case brought about by the federal government against President Trump.
“The decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissing Petitioner John Anthony Castro’s civil action on the grounds that he lacks constitutional standing to sue another candidate who is allegedly unqualified to hold public office in the United States pursuant to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution,” Mr. Castro wrote in a writ of certiorari (pdf) to the U.S. Supreme Court several days ago.
Meanwhile, Mr. Castro claimed that as a Republican candidate, President Trump appearing on the New Hampshire ballot impedes his capacity to get small-dollar donations. Federal Election Commission records show that he has raised zero dollars and gave his own presidential campaign $20 million.
“Petitioner Castro is an FEC-registered Republican presidential candidate actively pursuing the nomination of the Republican Party to pursue the Office of the Presidency of the United States,” he claimed, adding that “Trump is causing a political competitive injury upon Petitioner Castro in the form of diminution of potential votes, political support, and political campaign contributions.”
According to an interview he gave to Newsweek, he’s filed lawsuits against the former president in more than a dozen states. So far, President Trump has not responded to Mr. Castro’s claims in court.
Mr. Castro’s effort is one of several attempts to keep President Trump off the ballots in several states based on a novel interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
In August, the left-wing group Free Speech for People wrote to the secretaries of state of Florida, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, and Wisconsin, calling on them to not include President Trump on state ballots. Six Colorado voters also filed a lawsuit earlier in September to block him from appearing under the 14th Amendment.
Under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, a clause stipulates that a candidate can be disqualified if a person “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the United States or had “given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” While the federal government has charged the former president in relation to his activity after the 2020 election, he has not been charged with engaging in an insurrection against the U.S. government or similar crimes.
A number of legal experts and even some Democratic officials have disputed the legitimacy of the 14th Amendment-based attempts to block the former president from running.
Retired Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz has long argued that arguments to block the former president on 14th Amendment grounds are problematic, noting that the amendment was ratified after the Civil War. Some critics of the move took umbrage with claims that secretaries of state, who are voted into office, can unilaterally disqualify a candidate under such pretenses.
He added: “In the absence of any such designation, it would be possible for individual states to disqualify a candidate, while others qualify him. It would also be possible for the incumbent president to seek to disqualify his rival, or for a partisan congress to do so. There is no explicit provision for the courts to intervene in what they might regard as a political question.”
New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan, a Republican, said this month that he cannot disqualify the former president under the 14th Amendment.
“There is nothing in our state statute that gives the secretary of state discretion in entertaining qualification issues,” he said at a recent news conference. “If a candidate for president preferably submits their paperwork during the filing period and pays the required fee, their name will appear on the ballot.”
Michigan’s Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat who had railed against the former president’s 2020 claims of voter fraud in her state, also argued in a recent opinion article that only a court can decide.
“Michigan, unless a court rules otherwise, Donald Trump will be on the ballot for our Republican presidential primary on Feb. 27, 2024,” Mrs. Benson wrote. ”Whether Trump is eligible to run for president again is a decision not for secretaries of state but for the courts.”
Gabriel Sterling, a Georgia elections official who opposed President Trump, told ABC News that courts will likely throw out such cases because the former president hasn’t been convicted.
“If somebody’s adjudicated—if they’re convicted, somewhere of insurrection—that’s one thing. That’s not the case here and even in these other cases that are running right now. Our big concern is if you have a hung jury or is acquitted on anything, he will take his full exoneration,” Mr. Sterling said.
What is the central issue in the case of Mr. Castro’s appeal to the Supreme Court regarding President Trump’s disqualification from holding future public office?
Nstitution is hereby affirmed,” Judge Cannon stated in her ruling. She further explained that Mr. Castro’s claims lacked merit and did not meet the necessary requirements for legal standing. However, Mr. Castro decided to appeal the dismissal to the Supreme Court, seeking a review of his case.
The issue at hand revolves around the interpretation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, specifically Section 3. This section states that no person shall hold office if they have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the government or have given aid or comfort to its enemies. Mr. Castro argues that the events of January 6, 2021, when a mob stormed the U.S. Capitol building, constitute an act of insurrection, and therefore, President Trump should be disqualified from holding any future public office.
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case is significant, as it raises fundamental questions about the eligibility of candidates for public office and the consequences of their actions. While the court may focus on the specific circumstances surrounding the Capitol breach and President Trump’s alleged involvement, the broader implications of this case resonate beyond the former president.
This case brings to light the tension between the right to free speech and the limits of that right when it comes to incitement to violence or seditious acts. It also underscores the responsibility of elected officials to uphold the integrity of the democratic process and the potential consequences they may face if found to have violated that trust.
Additionally, this case may have ramifications for future presidential campaigns and the criteria by which candidates are judged. It raises questions about the role of character and moral conduct in assessing eligibility for public office. Should a person with a history of controversial behavior or alleged involvement in criminal acts be deemed fit to hold the highest office in the land?
Moreover, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case may set a precedent for future legal challenges regarding the eligibility of candidates based on their actions and behavior. It could establish a framework for evaluating the impact of an individual’s actions on their ability to hold public office, potentially influencing the way future cases are approached and decided.
As the Supreme Court prepares to render its decision, the eyes of the nation are on them. The implications of this case are far-reaching and will undoubtedly shape future discussions surrounding the eligibility and accountability of individuals seeking public office. The ruling will not only impact the political landscape but also carry significant symbolic weight, reflecting the values and principles upon which the United States is founded.
In a time where political polarization and division are rampant, this case serves as a reminder of the importance of upholding justice, fairness, and the rule of law. The decision of the Supreme Court will not only determine the fate of former President Trump’s eligibility but will also reaffirm the integrity of the U.S. Constitution and the democratic process as a whole.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...