Trump reacts to Denver’s 2024 ballot ban attempt.
Trump’s Attorneys Argue “Insurrection” Clause Violates Free Speech
Former President Donald Trump’s attorneys are fighting to keep him on the 2024 ballot, claiming that an attempt to bar him under the rarely invoked “insurrection” clause of the Constitution infringes on his right to free speech.
The lawsuit, filed by the liberal group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington on behalf of six electors, targets the Colorado Secretary of State and Trump himself, who is seeking another presidential run in 2024.
In a filing posted by a Colorado court on Sept. 25, Trump’s lawyers made this argument in response to a series of challenges to his candidacy based on a clause dating back to the Civil War. These challenges stem from Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 loss to President Joe Biden and his involvement in the events of Jan. 6.
Related Stories
“At no time do Petitioners argue that President Trump did anything other than engage in either speaking or refusing to speak for their argument that he engaged in the purported insurrection,” wrote (pdf) attorney Geoffrey Blue, defending the former president.Trump’s attorney also argues that the clause doesn’t apply to him because it refers to those who ”engaged in insurrection or rebellion,” not those who simply “instigated” actions.
According to Trump’s legal team, the challenge should be dismissed as he is not yet a candidate under Colorado election law, which is not designed to resolve constitutional disputes.
The motion, filed under Colorado’s anti-SLAPP law, which protects individuals from lawsuits targeting their First Amendment-protected speech, will be the first 14th Amendment challenge filed in multiple states to be heard in open court. It was lodged on Friday and posted by the court on Monday.
Sarah B. Wallace, district judge in Denver, has scheduled a hearing on the motion for October 13, with the constitutional issues to be heard on October 30.
Section Three of the amendment disqualifies anyone who previously swore to uphold the Constitution and then “engaged” in “insurrection or rebellion” from holding office. Its original purpose was to prevent former Confederate officials from seizing control of the government.
Trump’s claim of First Amendment protection aligns with his defense in criminal cases related to the Jan. 6 attack. He argues that he was merely drawing attention to what he believed was an improper election, despite numerous dismissed petitions challenging the election results.
In the initial suit, the group argued that “due to his disqualification under Section 3, Trump is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President.
They also claim that the secretary has not committed to preventing Trump’s candidacy and ask the judge to declare her actions allowing him on the ballot as a breach of duty.
Judge Robin Rosenberg of Florida, appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama, recently dismissed a similar case, stating that an individual citizen does not have standing to challenge another individual’s qualification for public office.
The former president, represented by the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) in the Colorado case, is also facing similar lawsuits in Oklahoma (pdf), Texas, and West Virginia.The ACLJ is also representing the Oklahoma Republican Party in their fight for ballot access, stating that they are filing a motion to intervene (pdf) in federal court to be heard in the case.The Associated Press contributed to this report.
How do Trump’s attorneys argue that the “insurrection” clause infringes upon his right to free speech under the First Amendment?
On 3 of the 14th Amendment states that no person shall hold any office if they have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States. This clause has rarely been invoked in legal cases, making the current lawsuit surrounding former President Donald Trump’s candidacy for the 2024 election particularly significant.
The lawsuit, brought forth by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a liberal group, on behalf of six electors, targets both the Colorado Secretary of State and Trump himself. It challenges Trump’s eligibility for the ballot based on his involvement in the events of January 6th and his subsequent efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The lawsuit argues that Trump’s actions constituted insurrection, thus disqualifying him from holding any public office.
In response to these challenges, Trump’s attorneys filed a motion in a Colorado court on September 25th. They argue that the “insurrection” clause infringes upon Trump’s right to free speech under the First Amendment. Trump’s lawyers assert that their client did not engage in any actions that could be considered insurrection but instead exercised his right to speak or refuse to speak.
Furthermore, Trump’s legal team argues that the clause does not apply to him because it refers to individuals who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion,” rather than those who simply “instigated” such actions. They contend that Trump’s role in the events of January 6th falls under the latter category and should not disqualify him from running for president.
The motion also claims that the challenge should be dismissed because Trump is not yet an official candidate according to Colorado election law, which is not designed to resolve constitutional disputes. By filing the motion under Colorado’s anti-SLAPP law, which protects free speech, Trump’s attorneys aim to provide additional protection for their client’s First Amendment rights.
This legal challenge has historical significance, as it will be the first 14th Amendment challenge filed in multiple states to be heard in open court. The motion was lodged on Friday and posted by the court on Monday. District Judge Sarah B. Wallace in Denver has set a hearing date for October 13th, during which the motion will be discussed, with the constitutional issues to be heard on October 30th.
The outcome of this legal battle will have far-reaching implications for both Trump and any future presidential candidates. It will clarify the interpretation and scope of the “insurrection” clause of the 14th Amendment, as well as illuminate the relationship between free speech and eligibility for public office. Regardless of the court’s decision, this case underscores the ongoing tension between the protection of free speech and the consequences of inciting or participating in acts of insurrection.
" 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...