USA Today – To allow Donald Trump to appear on the 2024 presidential ballot, the courts will need to explain why any ruling that keeps the former president in the running doesn’t itself betray the Constitution. Laurence H. Tribe and Dennis Aftergut, Opinion contributors: “A trial that began Monday in Colorado and legal arguments scheduled for Thursday in the Minnesota Supreme Court will test Donald Trump’s eligibility to serve as president. Both cases raise a monumental question that only the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately be able to decide: Will we retain the Constitution under which we’ve governed ourselves for 234 years by ensuring that the awesome power of the presidency is never entrusted to someone who will not abide by the verdict of our nation’s laws for election or reelection to that office? The premise of a presidential term limited to four years unless the president is lawfully reelected is at the core of the constitutional framework and central to the framers’ goal of not recreating a monarchy. A president who seeks to defy that premise rebels against the Constitution’s very structure. That premise is vital to the cases in Colorado and Minnesota because they have been brought under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment: “No person shall … hold any office … under the United States … who, having previously taken an oath … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.”
See also
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.