Trump, whose front-running Republican candidacy could be threatened, appealed the Maine decision by Democrat Shenna Bellows, who became the first secretary of state in history to bar someone from running for the presidency under the rarely used Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. That provision prohibits those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office.

The former president is expected to soon appeal a similar ban by the Colorado Supreme Court. That appeal would go to the U.S. Supreme Court, while Bellows’ action is being appealed to a Maine Superior Court.

Trump’s appeal on Tuesday asks that Bellows be required to place him on the March 5 primary ballot. The appeal argues that she abused her discretion and relied on “untrustworthy evidence.”

  • DigitalNirvana@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    It’s always interesting when the journalist points out that the use of the insurrection clause in the 14th amendment is rare. Well so is insurrection. And from the readily available, and demonstratively trustworthy evidence it is clear the insurrection continues.

    • phx
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      I think it’s fair to point out it’s a rarely used law, as it’s indicative of exceptional circumstances.

      • girlfreddyOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Exceptional circumstances like Trump being elected President of the United States and trying to steal the following election?

        • DigitalNirvana@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          6 months ago

          With the assistance of Russia and China, as a way to destabilize the USA, and destroy democracy, perhaps? But that’s not how the article emphasized things.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        6 months ago

        I think the added context is important. Rarely enforced laws sometimes are stupid old laws that only get pulled out as attacks and sometimes they’re part of the structural integrity of your society but they’re rarely broken. One side of the political aisle is convinced this situation is the former.

    • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yeah, they always fail to specify that second part, as if a thousand redneck assholes perpetrating a domestic terrorist attack at the US Capitol is a common thing.

  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    The appeal argues that she abused her discretion and relied on “untrustworthy evidence.”

    Like her eyes and ears. /s

  • WarmSoda@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    I dare you to not stare into the starfish in his neck.

    You did it, didn’t you? That’s four more years of bad luck. Thanks allot.

  • Donjuanme@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    Is “the emperor’s new clothes” on the banned book list in the South?

    It’s a pretty easy read, if anyone down there wants a crack at it I’ll buy them a copy.