A group of voters in Minnesota are trying to bar Trump from the 2024 ballot under the 14th Amendment, alleging he violated his oath of office by inciting the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack.

The trial over an effort in Minnesota to keep former President Donald Trump off of the 2024 ballot began Thursday at the state Supreme Court as a similar case continued in Colorado.

The lawsuits in both states allege Trump should be barred from the 2024 ballot for his conduct leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. They argue Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election results violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says no one who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” after swearing an oath to support and defend the Constitution can hold office.

A group of Minnesota voters, represented by the election reform group Free Speech for People, sued in September to remove Trump from the state ballot under the 14th Amendment provision. The petitioners include former Minnesota Secretary of State Joan Growe and former state Supreme Court Justice Paul H. Anderson.

    • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      1 year ago

      OP is referring to this, and I'm not sure how to interpret it.

      Section 5.

      The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

      • Dkarma@lemmy.world
        51·
        1 year ago

        If they're already elected and serving then Congress has to decide how they're punished.
        This makes sense cuz Congress has its own ethic committees.

        They're broke. And ineffective but they're there.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
        81·
        1 year ago

        Not exactly.

        It says:

        No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

        The distinction is that congress can- with a 2/3’s vote of both the Senate and Representatives- remove the prohibition, not that they have a say in him being barred.

        In any case, good luck getting a 2/3’a majority vote in either body, nevermind both.

        • jballs@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          72·
          1 year ago

          Didn't Clinton and Obama lead the charge to override that for McCain back in 2008? If I recall correctly, he was born on a military base or something that technically might not have been the US, so they did the right thing and made it a non-issue. Of course the GOP responded in kind by spending the next 8 years claiming Obama was lying about being born in the US. Stay classy, GOP.

          • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
            51·
            1 year ago

            I'm not really sure what the relevance here is?

            McCain was a US citizen- but he was born on a US military base in Panama (because his parents were stationed there.) They were both US citizens. There is absolutely no reason to believe McCain was inelligible because he was not a "natural born" citizen. (IIRC, the distinction is that one was always a US citizen, that is, your parents were both citizens and you inherited citizen ship from them, as apposed to having been a citizen of elsewhere and having immigrated to the US.)

            it was basically a bullshit excuse. and while you're right, the GOP didn't return the favor with Obama… this is a patently different matter.

            • jballs@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              11·
              1 year ago

              I'm not really sure what the relevance here is?

              The 14th amendment says that 2/3rds of Congress can vote to override citizenship requirements, I pointed to an example where that's actually happened in recent history where some were arguing that a presidential candidate might not be eligible to run (https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/us/politics/11mccain.html), Congress voted to make that a non-issue, and you don't see the relevance? Ok, guess I can't really help ya much more. Have a good day, I guess?

              • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
                31·
                1 year ago

                The 14th amendment says that 2/3rds of Congress can vote to override citizenship requirements,

                wut??? where? The full text:

                Section 1

                All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

                Section 2

                Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

                Section 3

                No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

                Section 4

                The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

                Section 5

                The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

                Section three says that congress can allow somebody who has engaged in insurrection to be eligible. it says nothing about allowing naturalized citizens to be made eligible by congress.

                Further, in point of fact, the McCain thing had everything to do with technicalities of vaguley described definitions. Some idiots were arguing that McCain was inelibible because he wasn't born on US soil. Despite having two parent who were both US citizens- and were in Panama on military orders.

                Finally, Congress did not pass a law or do anything that had the force of law to support McCain, or to make him ineligible when he was not. it was a non-binding resolution that basically said, "hey we see this bullshit." McCain was already eligible because he was a citizen by birth… the idiots were trying to argue that he was ineligible because he wasn't born on US soil which… is stupid.

                And again, McCain is largely irrelevant.

      • probablyaCat@kbin.social
        4·
        1 year ago

        They don't hold 2/3 vote of both houses. Zero chance congress would overturn the ruling (granted the final ruling would have to come from the US supreme court).

        • ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world
          3·
          1 year ago

          14a3 presumes he's disqualified. Do you have a cite why it would have to come from SCOTUS? That's not in the constitution

          • probablyaCat@kbin.social
            2·
            1 year ago

            I suppose it doesn't. They could call a vote on it at any point. But I don't imagine they would unless provoked by a ruling. If they didn't want him to lose in a single state, they could call it now and those state cases would go away. If they are waiting for that, then they know it will be appealed and would likely wait for the SCOTUS. Because why not? Why spend that political capital when it is likely to be unnecessary. MAGA hurt them a lot in the midterms.

            But you are right. They can technically call it. I should have been more clear. Given that they haven't yet, they are likely waiting for outcomes if they are going to at all. It's also possible that aside from the MAGA nutjob faithfuls (looking at you MTG) they really want him to be done. And even if they don't, to stop before it had a supreme court ruling would be basically admitting he was part of an insurrection, but you want to support him anyways.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            31·
            1 year ago

            Is anything in the SCOTUS does in the Constitution? This is the same court that is letting states fund religious schools.