Supreme Court Clears Trump’s Path to 2024 Nomination

iexclusivenews – In a landmark ruling, the US Supreme Court has rejected the attempts of some states to prevent Donald Trump from running for president again, citing an obscure constitutional provision that was enacted after the Civil War.

The court unanimously ruled that Colorado and other states that tried to exclude Mr Trump from their Republican primaries had no authority to do so, as only Congress can enforce the anti-insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment.

The ruling paves the way for Mr Trump to participate in the Colorado primary, which is part of the crucial Super Tuesday contests that will determine the Republican nominee for the 2024 presidential election.

Mr Trump celebrated the ruling as a “big win for America” and a vindication of his claims that he was the victim of a “witch hunt”. He also used the opportunity to solicit donations from his loyal supporters, who he urged to join him on his new social media platform, Truth Social.

Mr Trump, who spoke from his Florida resort, Mar-a-Lago, said that the ruling was “very well written” and that it would help to “unite our country, which is what we need”.

He also said that he had the right to run for president again, regardless of what his opponents wanted. “You can’t take someone out of a race because you don’t like them,” he said.

Colorado’s Secretary of State, Jena Griswold, expressed her disappointment with the ruling and said that “Colorado should have the power to keep oath-breakers and insurrectionists off our ballot”.

She was echoed by the watchdog group that filed the lawsuit in Colorado, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew), which said that while the court “missed the opportunity” to hold Mr Trump accountable, it was “still a victory for democracy: Trump will be remembered as an insurrectionist”.

READ MORE:

Donald Trump Banned from Colorado Ballot Over Insurrection

Trump Provides A Rapid-fire Testimony In New York Defamation Trial

Why did Colorado and other states try to ban Trump?

Colorado and two other states, Maine and Illinois, had invoked Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, to bar Mr Trump from their Republican primaries.

Section 3 states that no person who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the US, or given aid or comfort to its enemies, shall hold any federal, state, or military office.

The states argued that Mr Trump had violated this provision by inciting the violent mob that stormed the US Capitol on 6 January 2021, in an attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

The states also cited Mr Trump’s repeated lies about the election being rigged and stolen from him, which they said undermined the legitimacy of the US government and democracy.

The states hoped that by excluding Mr Trump from their primaries, they could prevent him from securing enough delegates to win the Republican nomination, and thus spare the country from another divisive and chaotic election.

How did the Supreme Court rule?

The Supreme Court ruled that the states had overstepped their bounds by trying to enforce Section 3 against Mr Trump, as the Constitution gives that power exclusively to Congress.

The court said that states can only disqualify people from holding or seeking state offices, but not federal offices, especially the presidency.

The court also said that Congress can only enforce Section 3 by passing a law that specifies the process and criteria for disqualifying federal officials and candidates.

The court noted that Congress has never passed such a law, and that the only time it invoked Section 3 was in 1919, when it barred Victor Berger, a socialist congressman from Wisconsin, from taking his seat because he had opposed US involvement in World War I.

The court said that its ruling was based on the text and history of the Constitution, and that it was not taking sides on the political or moral questions raised by Mr Trump’s actions.

The court also said that its ruling was limited to the specific issue of Section 3, and that it did not address other possible grounds for disqualifying Mr Trump from running for president, such as impeachment and conviction, or the 25th Amendment.

What are the implications of the ruling?

The ruling is a major boost for Mr Trump, who has been hinting at running for president again in 2024, despite being impeached twice and banned from most social media platforms.

The ruling means that Mr Trump can compete in the Colorado primary, which is one of the 14 states that will hold their Republican primaries on Super Tuesday, 5 March 2024.

Super Tuesday is seen as a crucial test for presidential candidates, as it awards more than a third of the total delegates needed to secure the nomination.

Mr Trump is expected to face a crowded field of challengers, including some of his former allies and critics, such as former Vice-President Mike Pence, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, and Senator Ted Cruz.

Mr Trump remains popular among the Republican base, and has a loyal following of millions of supporters who believe his false claims about the 2020 election.

However, he also faces strong opposition from some segments of the Republican Party, as well as the majority of the American public, who blame him for the Capitol riot and the mishandling of the Covid-19 pandemic.

The ruling also raises questions about the relevance and enforceability of Section 3, which was intended to prevent former Confederates and their sympathizers from holding office after the Civil War.

Some legal experts and activists have argued that Section 3 should be revived and applied to Mr Trump and other officials who supported or participated in the Capitol riot, as a way of safeguarding democracy and deterring future insurrections.

However, the ruling makes it clear that only Congress can enforce Section 3, and that it would require passing a new law that defines what constitutes insurrection or rebellion, and how to identify and disqualify those who are involved.

Such a law would likely face political and legal hurdles, as it would require bipartisan support in Congress, and could be challenged in court on constitutional grounds.

The ruling also leaves open the possibility that other states could try to ban Mr Trump from their ballots on different grounds, such as his impeachment and acquittal, or his mental fitness.

However, such efforts would also face legal challenges, and could be seen as undemocratic and unfair by some voters.

The ruling underscores the difficulty of holding Mr Trump accountable for his actions, and the uncertainty of his political future. It also shows the power and influence of the Supreme Court, which has the final say on the interpretation and application of the Constitution.