The insurrection clause has waited 150 years for the Trump test

[marmar]

The insurrection clause has waited 150 years for the Trump test
Can the Constitution be used to block Donald Trump from re-taking office?

By SABRINA HAAKE
Contributing Writer
PUBLISHED DECEMBER 9, 2023 6:00AM (EST)


(Salon) Lawyers who represent the government in federal court face a never-ending supply of 1st and 14th Amendment cases from creative plaintiffs. Most such Constitutional claims don’t stick. They hit a well-oiled wall of federal case law and slid right off.

Applying the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment to bar Trump’s 2024 candidacy presents the opposite scenario. There exists virtually no prior cases to follow. In fact, critics who reject Trump’s disqualification under this clause lean almost entirely on the lack of legal precedent.

Other than Trump, in the history of the United States, a defeated president has never tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power. In over 150 years following the 14th Amendment’s adoption, there was never a set of similar facts that could have triggered the insurrectionist clause.

Lack of precedent is irrelevant

Lack of prior similar cases doesn’t render Section 3 of the 14th Amendment any less potent, or its historical imperative any less compelling. If anything, its application is even more urgent as the same violent insurrectionist forces that tore the nation apart in the Civil War are back at it today. ................(more)

https://www.salon.com/2023/12/09/the-insurrection-clause-has-waited-150-years-for-the-test/

[dutch777]

1. I hope some lower court judge finds against Trump and this goes to the Supreme Court with urgency

I don't have much hope SCOTUS will go the way many of us would like, but I would like to know all that could be done to keep the crazy out, was done.