Podcast Summary
Supreme Court to Decide if Trump Can Run in 2024 Elections Based on 14th Amendment: The Supreme Court will determine if Trump's alleged involvement in an insurrection or rebellion disqualifies him from running in future elections according to the 14th amendment. The definition of insurrection or rebellion is the main point of contention.
The United States Supreme Court is set to make a decision on whether Donald Trump should be banned from ballots in various states based on the allegation that he engaged in insurrection or rebellion under the 14th amendment, section 3. Trump's team argues that he did not engage in such activities as defined by the amendment, which was designed as a loyalty test after the Civil War to keep Confederate officers from holding office. The key point of contention is the definition of insurrection or rebellion. Trump's opponents argue that the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol was an insurrection, but his team contends that it was just a tactic and the real insurrection or rebellion is the refusal to peacefully transfer power to the rightful winner of an election. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on this matter on February 8, and while we won't be able to see the proceedings, we will likely get the audio. This case holds significant historical importance and will provide insight into the interpretation of the 14th amendment.
14th Amendment Section 3 and the President: The House January 6th Committee's legal team argues that the 14th Amendment Section 3 applies to the president as an officer under the constitution, despite the president's team's argument that it doesn't.
The legal team for the House January 6th Committee argues that the 14th Amendment Section 3 does not apply to the president of the United States because he is not an "officer under or of the United States." They base this on historical references and the president's oath of office. However, the Committee's team disputes this interpretation, pointing to the legislative history and the fact that the framers used broad terms when listing officers subject to disqualification. They argue that the provision applies to any officer who takes an oath to support the constitution and that this includes the president. Additionally, they argue that Congress must take action to disqualify a president from taking office if they are found to be an insurrectionist or rebel. Overall, the House January 6th Committee's legal team believes that the 14th Amendment Section 3 provides the necessary grounds to prevent a president who engaged in insurrection or rebellion from taking office.
Republican Lawyer Harmit Dhillon Leads Twitter Appeal: Harmit Dhillon, a Republican lawyer known for defending social media users, leads an appeal against Elon Musk for Twitter users. Simultaneously, HIMSS offers affordable online solutions for men's health issues like ED.
Harmit Dhillon, a well-known Republican lawyer, is leading the charge in an appeal against Elon Musk on behalf of Twitter users. Dhillon, who primarily represents Republican interests, has a history of working on cases against those who use social media for official business and have had their accounts improperly restricted. She previously represented Marjorie Taylor Greene in a case regarding her Twitter account. While Donald Trump is also involved in related appeals, he is using different lawyers for different issues. Meanwhile, HIMSS was discussed as a solution for men's health issues, particularly ED, offering affordable and discreet treatments online. The takeaway is that Dhillon's involvement in the Twitter appeal highlights her commitment to advocating for individuals' rights to use social media for official business, while HIMSS is addressing a common health concern in a convenient and affordable way.
Two main arguments against Trump's eligibility: Lawyers for respondents argue Trump isn't an 'officer' under the Constitution due to lack of oath and claim insurrection occurred through Trump's actions, not just Capitol attack. They suggest Congress should create a remedial scheme and determine eligibility, not states.
That the lawyers for the respondents in the ongoing Supreme Court case argue for the reversal of the decision based on two main points. First, they claim that President Trump is not an "officer of the United States" under the Constitution as he never took an oath to trigger Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Second, they argue that the insurrection and rebellion against the Constitution occurred not only during the Capitol attack but also through Trump's actions to refuse peacefully transferring power to Joe Biden. The lawyers also suggest that Congress should create a remedial scheme to implement Section 3 and that the determination of eligibility for the presidency should be the responsibility of Congress, not individual states. Despite the argument that Section 3 is not a ballot-stripping provision, the lawyers for the respondents face challenges in their interpretation of the legislative history and the literal text of the Constitution. Ultimately, the outcome of the case will depend on how the Supreme Court interprets these arguments.
Trump's Legal Team Arguments Dismissed as Narrow and Misrepresentative: Former President Trump's defense in his impeachment trial was criticized for focusing too narrowly on semantics of his oath and ignoring larger context of his actions leading up to the Capitol insurrection. The trial's findings were also criticized for focusing too narrowly on the insurrection itself.
Former President Trump's legal team's arguments in his impeachment trial regarding his oath of office and his involvement in the Capitol insurrection were criticized as narrow and misrepresentative of the facts. Regarding the oath, the argument that Trump took the wrong oath was dismissed as semantic, as the oath he took was virtually the same as any other president's. Regarding the insurrection, the focus on Trump's speech at the Ellipse was criticized as ignoring the larger context of his actions leading up to the event, including his calls for peaceful protest and his knowledge of armed supporters in the crowd. Additionally, the fact that Trump did not take immediate action to stop the attack was cited as evidence of dereliction of duty. The trial's findings were also criticized for focusing too narrowly on the insurrection itself. Overall, the arguments presented by Trump's legal team were seen as insufficient to exonerate him from the charges.
Trump's legal battles not only about Capitol insurrection: Legal proceedings against Trump focus on his attempts to manipulate electors, pressure Pence, and consider martial law, with potential implications for future elections and constitutional process.
The ongoing legal proceedings against former President Donald Trump are not just about his potential role in the Capitol insurrection, but also about his attempts to undermine the constitutional process of a peaceful transfer of power. This includes efforts to manipulate electors, pressure Mike Pence, and even consider declaring martial law. The Supreme Court is expected to frame this issue in those terms, according to legal analysts. Additionally, the debate centers around whether Trump should be disqualified from holding office through a 2/3 congressional vote, rather than being removed from the ballot, which could disenfranchise millions of voters. The outcome of these arguments will be significant in understanding the legal implications of Trump's actions and their impact on future elections.
