Former DOJ official Francey Hakes discusses the Supreme Court’s decision to hear arguments for former President Trump’s Colorado ballot ban case on ‘The Evening Edit.’
Subscribe to Fox Business! https://bit.ly/2D9Cdse
Watch more Fox Business Video: https://video.foxbusiness.com
Watch Fox Business Network Live: http://www.foxnewsgo.com/
FOX Business Network (FBN) is a financial news channel delivering real-time information across all platforms that impact both Main Street and Wall Street. Headquartered in New York — the business capital of the world — FBN launched in October 2007 and is one of the leading business networks on television, having topped CNBC in Business Day viewers for the second consecutive year in 2018. The network is available in nearly 80 million homes in all markets across the United States. Owned by FOX Corporation, FBN is a unit of FOX News Media and has bureaus in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C.
Follow Fox Business on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/FoxBusiness
Follow Fox Business on Twitter: https://twitter.com/foxbusiness
Follow Fox Business on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/foxbusiness
source
This is Dems civil war.
How the f can you kick any presidential candidate off the ballot? The point of voting is so the people can choose… I mean its pretty obvious last election was rigged but this is next level.
These Democrats are communists
TBH they have declared war already. Thank God SCOTUS isnt compromised or this country would be finished.
But accusing me as a Trump supporter as the danger to democracy is insane and I take that as a threat.
If they rig the election when its obvious Trump is going to win watch out folks things will get crazy. Get as much food and water as you can and at least 1 firearm to protect yourself from the leftist mobs who will come after doxxed conservatives with federal blessings.
Where does the 14th say ppl can be banned from ballots?? Most of the 1861 insurrectionist were in fact allowed to be elected and the contest against them holding office wasn’t until they actually “assumed” office per the plain text in the 14th amendment. Additionally, most 1861 insurrectionist acknowledged their guilt as a condition of their release from Unionist Military Custody via “new Oaths” to the USA or admitted guilt as conditions placed on the presidential pardons offered to them by Abe Lincoln & Andrew Johnson. Even the pre-trial pardon offered to Jefferson Davis was conditional to “treasonous insurrectionist and/or those who aided & gave comfort in the rebellion” by President Johnson. Trump has neither admitted to any guilt, nor accepted any pre-trial conditional pardons requiring him to admit to guilt as a condition of accepting said pardon. Additionally, many examples of Section 3 of the 14th amendment being used by govt in the past of actually “barring ppl from holding office” (not barring ppl from being on ballots per the plain text of the 14th) AND they are mostly individuals who never contested being 1861 insurrectionist in their lower court proceedings; like JD Watkins for example. As such, it appears the federal govt has used “admissions of guilt” beyond reasonable doubt standards found in the 6th Amendment (or accepting conditional pardons requiring admission of guilt to accept pardons in lieu of beyond reasonable doubt standard trials) to effectuate the barring from holding office (not appearing of ballots) of in section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Letisha James is another disgusting Black!
DONT EXPECT US TO FOLLOW THE LAW IF THEY DONT…………………….HAHAHAHAHAHA
SEE WHAT MONEY DOES TO YOUR BRAIN…………………..LOOK AT RASKIN AND PELOSI
kicking trump off the ballots is the ultimate attack against democracy
3 says any officer who takes an oath Trump took the oath when he became the OFFICE of the presidency Teaching Republicans one step at a time Jamie Raskin, was also a professor of constitutional law
Funny thing is If, Trump was a Democrat Republicans would want him removed from the ballot in all 50 states Not just a few
by the democrats? Like the republicans who brought it up before the court in colrado? The several RED states who also want him removed from the ballet?
Raskin is too dumb to be a lawyer that's why he's a democrat
All this “is election corruption “
The people will pick the president
Not the communist Democrats
It’s election interference plain and simple, the left is so scared of Donald Trump that they are interfering in the 2024 election by telling you who they think you should be able to vote for, all the time ignoring the media’s election interference or China’s election interference
Democrats are so corrupt 😢
Just like my body my choice, well my choice to vote for the candidate i want to run as president, so screw you anti life people
It should be very clear, for those who read the text of Section 3, of the 14th Amendment, that the disqualification clause did not attach itself to states removing candidates from the ballot. Of the offices specified, No one shall be a Senator, Representative in Congress or elector of President and Vice President, only Representative was elected by a ballot that people voted for in elections. Senators were elected at the time by the State Legislators and sent to Congress. Sec 3 allows that the Senate does not need to seat a senator who had engaged in an insurrection but had been elected nevertheless by a state legislature.
Why might 2024 be the LAST ELECTION Decided by BALLOTS?!
Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas:
"Do you know how political opponents to those in power are dealt with in third world dictatorships, banana republics and communist regimes?
– The people in power use their police agencies to arrest their opponents for made up crimes in an attempt to discredit them, bankrupt them, imprison them, Exile them!
– Biden is using exactly those tactics to make sure that Donald Trump is not his opponent in 2024!
– While all the time being obsessed with charging Trump with crimes that even liberal Democrats and never Trumper constitutional Scholars such as Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley assert are not even crimes at all!"
Certainly, let's incorporate the argument about the explicit omission of Presidents and Vice Presidents in Chapter 3 of the 14th Amendment:
In the Supreme Court of the United States
Case No. [Your Case Number]
Petitioner: [Name of Petitioner]
Brief for the Petitioner
I. Introduction
The petitioner, [Name of Petitioner], vigorously contests the charge that Donald J. Trump engaged in insurrection and is thereby disqualified from holding future public office under the 14th Amendment, Section 3. This brief will meticulously address the nuanced legal aspects surrounding the events of January 6, 2021.
II. Factual Context
a. Speech Content: First Amendment Protections
The petitioner argues that Donald J. Trump's speech on January 6, 2021, was well within the bounds of the First Amendment. While impassioned, Trump's words did not constitute a direct and unequivocal call for immediate, lawless action. The Supreme Court's precedent in Brandenburg v. Ohio sets a high standard for speech to be considered incitement, requiring an imminent threat of violence, which the petitioner asserts was not met.
b. Intent: Lack of Direct Incitement
The petitioner maintains that there is a lack of evidence demonstrating Trump's intent to incite an insurrection. Trump called for peaceful protests and explicitly discouraged violence in his remarks. Any ambiguity in his statements should be interpreted in favor of preserving the constitutionally protected right to free speech.
III. Legal Arguments
a. First Amendment Protections
The petitioner emphasizes the fundamental importance of protecting free speech rights, particularly in the context of political discourse. Political speech, even when contentious, is at the core of the First Amendment's protections. The petitioner asserts that any restrictions on such speech must be narrowly tailored and meet the stringent standards set by the Supreme Court.
b. Lack of Direct Involvement
The petitioner contends that while the events on January 6 were regrettable, there is no evidence of direct involvement by Donald J. Trump in the breach of the Capitol. Trump did not instruct his supporters to engage in violent activities, and the petitioner argues that the absence of a direct link weakens the insurrection charge.
IV. 14th Amendment, Section 3
a. Scope of Section 3: Explicit Omission of Presidents and Vice Presidents
The petitioner underscores that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment explicitly lists senators, representatives, and various civil and military officers but omits Presidents and Vice Presidents from the disqualification. The careful wording of the Constitution by the Founding Fathers, who were known for their precision in language, must be respected. The intentional omission of the executive branch from this provision indicates a specific choice not to subject Presidents and Vice Presidents to this form of disqualification.
b. Political Nature of Disqualification Process
The petitioner emphasizes that disqualification under the 14th Amendment is a political process, requiring a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and the Senate. Such a serious decision should be grounded in clear and convincing evidence of active participation in insurrection, not merely political disagreements or controversial speech.
V. Conclusion
In conclusion, the petitioner implores the Supreme Court to uphold the constitutional protections of free speech, carefully scrutinize the intent behind Trump's statements, acknowledge the explicit omission of Presidents and Vice Presidents in Chapter 3 of the 14th Amendment, Section 3, and apply the specific requirements outlined in the Constitution. Disqualification under this provision should be reserved for clear cases of insurrection, and in this instance, the evidence falls short of meeting that standard.
This elaboration includes the argument about the explicit omission of Presidents and Vice Presidents from the disqualification clause in the 14th Amendment, Section 3, highlighting the Founding Fathers' intentional and precise language in constitutional drafting.
Well they just proved right out of his own mouth. If he can’t comprehend the law then he’s not qualified for his job!!!!!
Yes, and kick him off all ballots because he doesn’t deserve any place in government except in the jail yard cleaning up the mess he created. He can high five all his cons then.
Not only is he treasonous, but he’s incompetent and the ultimate, narcissist gak no place in government
He probably plagiarized his way through school like the rest of those liberals!