{"id":14964,"date":"2024-03-07T18:14:30","date_gmt":"2024-03-08T02:14:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bradblog.com\/?p=14964"},"modified":"2024-03-07T18:24:09","modified_gmt":"2024-03-08T02:24:09","slug":"scotus-insurrection-clause-ruling-a-sham-says-group-that-first-raised-constitutional-concern-bradcast-372024","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bradblog.com\/?p=14964","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUS ‘Insurrection Clause’ Ruling a ‘Sham’ Says Group That First Raised Constitutional Concern: ‘BradCast’ 3\/7\/2024"},"content":{"rendered":"

On today’s BradCast<\/i><\/a>, we’re honored to be joined by one of the Constitutional law experts who first brought the issue of the Constitution’s “Insurrection Disqualification Clause” to the attention of the nation…before our corrupted, activist U.S. Supreme Court, he explains, “invented” a way to nullify it to help protect our disgraced former President on Monday. [Audio link to full show follows this summary.<\/i>]\n

Free Speech for People<\/a> (FSFP) is the non-partisan government accountability group which first raised the issue<\/a> of Donald Trump<\/b>‘s clear violation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment<\/a> way back during the summer of 2021. At the time, they sent letters<\/a> to chief election officials in all 50 states warning them not to place Trump on the ballot should the disgraced former President chose to run again in 2024, as he was in violation of the Constitutional clause barring oath-breakers from public office after having “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the nation. After having incited the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, they explained to state officials, he was no longer eligible for office under the post-Civil War Amendment.<\/p>\n

They were, of course, correct. Both chambers of Congress, in bipartisan votes, found that Trump had, in fact, incited the insurrection while attempting to prevent Joe Biden<\/b>, the winner of the 2020 election from being certified by Congress. Late last year the Colorado<\/b> Supreme Court agreed [PDF]<\/a>, and barred Trump from the state’s ballot. He appealed the ruling to SCOTUS, which quickly<\/i> heard the matter and issued its 13-page ruling [PDF]<\/a> on Monday, pulling reasons out of thin air<\/a> for why Colorado could not<\/i> bar Trump from running in the state.<\/p>\n

The Republican Supremes went even further by inventing a new mandate that will prevent insurrectionists from being barred from federal office under 14.3 unless Congress adopts a new law to execute the 150 year old Amendment. (Or, at least, to execute it’s two-sentence Section 3. All of the other<\/i> mandates of the 14th — such as citizenship for those born or naturalized in the U.S., due process for all and equal protection under the law — are all self-executing. A special law by Congress is, apparently, only necessary for Section 3, for some reason, according to the Supreme Court as of this week.)<\/p>\n

We’re joined today by FSFP’s Legal Director<\/a>, RON FEIN<\/b>, who, with fellow FSFP Constitutional law experts John Bonifaz<\/b> and Ben Clement<\/b>, penned an op-ed<\/a> on Wednesday, describing the Court’s ruling as “an error of historic proportions and a sham.”<\/p>\n

The Court’s ruling, he argues today, “had nothing to do with the text of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, nor of the history, or the original public understanding of Section 3. Instead, the Justices — and it’s not just the six conservative Justices but also the three so-called liberals — started from the endpoint of the result that they wanted to reach and then worked backwards to find a rationale.”<\/p>\n

“If they had wanted to say that Trump didn’t engage in insurrection,” he tells me, “I would have had a little bit more respect. It would have been very brazen and obviously ridiculous. But at least they would have been straightforwardly saying something that would have meant that he wasn’t disqualified — if they wanted to defy all evidence and say that he didn’t engage in insurrection. But instead, they fabricated an exception that can be found nowhere in the Constitution, that basically lets Trump and others off without ever confronting the merits of what he did.”<\/p>\n

As anyone who has read Monday’s ruling may have noticed, the Justices never dispute the Colorado Supreme Court’s finding — following a five-day trial — that, yes, Trump is, in fact, an insurrectionist. In fact, the Court’s three liberals, in response to the part of the majority’s Opinion from which they dissent, refer to Trump as an “oathbreaking insurrectionist” on numerous occasions. <\/p>\n

Fein describes how the SCOTUS ruling makes a mockery of their claim to require “uniformity” in elections. “This is something that they pull when they want to, but it has no real basis in reality,” he notes, describing how our Presidential election system is actually set up to allow each state to determine their own way of running elections.<\/p>\n

“We have state by state elections,” he asserts, “both at the primary stage and in the general election. We have, for better or worse, an Electoral College system. That’s the system under which Donald Trump became President under in 2016. It is not at all uncommon, both in the primaries and in the general election, for some candidates to be on some states’ ballots and not others. In fact, we’re going to see that in this election. We’re going to see RFK Jr. will be on some states’ ballots, but not all of them. Cornel West will probably be in the same situation. The Constitution says that states have the power to determine how they appoint electors.”<\/p>\n

Those facts make the Court’s argument that removing Trump from the ballot would allow a single state to determine the result of the election a joke. Then again, the entire ruling is exactly that, if not a particularly amusing one. <\/p>\n

Fein eviscerates the rest of their opinion as well today, while warning that there may now be further Constitutional bastardizations regarding Trump in the days and years ahead. As he, Bonifaz and Clement explain in the chilling conclusion of their op-ed: “If Trump wins, prepare for a third term. Sure, the Twenty-Second Amendment says that ‘[n]o person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.’ But Trump has already claimed that he is entitled to a third term<\/a> because ‘they spied on my campaign.’ When Trump’s lawyers make this argument, what credibility will the Supreme Court have as he runs roughshod over our constitutional democracy?”<\/p>\n

ALSO TODAY…<\/em><\/p>\n