CNS News– The US Supreme Court faced criticism from a prominent historian and analyst of presidential politics, who asserted that the Court’s recent ruling regarding former President Donald Trump was a significant error. Allan Lichtman, a professor at American University in Washington DC known for accurately predicting presidential election outcomes since 1984, expressed disappointment in the Court’s decision regarding Colorado’s attempt to remove Trump from the ballot for his alleged role in inciting the January 6 insurrection.
In a unanimous ruling handed down on Monday, just before Colorado’s Super Tuesday primary, the Supreme Court determined that Colorado had no grounds to disqualify Trump from the ballot, asserting that only Congress holds the authority to disqualify a candidate for federal office.
This decision drew criticism from Lichtman and other historians who had argued in an amicus brief that Trump should be removed from the ballot under section three of the 14th amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to prevent former Confederates from holding office.
Lichtman emphasized the historical context behind the 14th amendment, contending that it was intended to serve as a check on insurrection and should apply to the presidency without requiring additional action from Congress. Despite the Court’s ruling, Lichtman found some positives, noting that the Court acknowledged the applicability of the 14th amendment to the presidency and indicated that disqualification could extend beyond ex-Confederates.
US supreme court ‘erred badly’ with Trump ruling, leading US historian says https://t.co/lhp8tmozN3
— Guardian US (@GuardianUS) March 5, 2024
Read More News: U.S. Representative. Colin Allred Won the Democrat Primary; and faced Ted Cruz in November!
War in Ukraine: Seven killed as Russian Ship Sunk by Drone Attack, according to Kyiv!
Texas Voters Agree Unanimously to Give Elon Musk Land in Boca Chica State Park!
However, the decision was not without its dissenters. Manisha Sinha, one of the signatories to the amicus brief, expressed disappointment with the Court’s reliance on Congress to enact disqualification procedures, suggesting that it may embolden future insurrectionists.
While the liberal justices raised concerns about the Court’s interpretation, Sinha lamented what she perceived as a departure from the conservative emphasis on states’ rights. Despite the legal setback for efforts to hold Trump accountable, Lichtman and others remain committed to challenging the decision, underscoring the ongoing significance of the case amid the broader political landscape.