CNS News–In a recent case before the U.S. Supreme Court, questions arose regarding the disqualification of former President Donald Trump from holding federal office under Section Three of the 14th Amendment. The case originated from a Colorado court’s ruling that Trump’s actions on January 6th, 2023, constituted grounds for disqualification.
However, the Supreme Court justices appeared hesitant to address the underlying issue and instead sought alternative arguments to sidestep the case. Trump’s lawyer, Jonathan Mitchell, presented a peculiar argument, focusing on the claim that the president is not considered an “officer” under the law.
Mitchell’s argument failed to provide convincing justification, leaving the justices to explore other avenues for resolution. Justice Samuel Alito proposed the notion that states like Colorado may lack the authority to enforce Section Three without congressional approval, leading the court to delve into questions regarding state authority over federal elections.
US supreme court justices have strange views on whether Trump is disqualified https://t.co/2ft65xiwXA
— The Guardian (@guardian) February 9, 2024
Read More News: Trump Has Said that He Might Urge Russia to Attack Allies of NATO!
A Bill in Florida Would Get Rid of All Property Taxes: New Bill Makes Waves!
Texas Lt Gov Alleges ‘Democratic Deep State Run by Obama’ Targeting Biden!
Despite historical evidence suggesting Section Three was intended to safeguard the republic from figures like Trump, the justices seemed more inclined to consider present-day political dynamics. The court’s apparent reluctance to address the substance of the case underscores broader concerns about judicial impartiality and adherence to constitutional principles.
The outcome of the case could have significant implications for future efforts to hold elected officials accountable for their actions. By sidestepping the issue of Trump’s disqualification, the court may inadvertently weaken constitutional safeguards against threats to democracy, potentially setting a troubling precedent for future challenges to executive authority.