Lawyers for former President Donald Trump are arguing that attempts to kick him off the presidential ballot under a rarely used constitutional clause for engaging in “insurrection” are improper attempts to interfere with his freedom of speech.

DENVER (AP) — Attorneys for former President Donald Trump argue that an attempt to bar him from the 2024 ballot under a rarely used “insurrection” clause of the Constitution should be dismissed as a violation of his freedom of speech.

The lawyers made the argument in a filing posted Monday by a Colorado court in the most significant of a series of challenges to Trump’s candidacy under the Civil War-era clause in the 14th Amendment. The challenges rest on Trump’s attempts to overturn his 2020 loss to Democrat Joe Biden and his role leading up to the violent Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

  • fubo@lemmy.world
    25·
    11 months ago

    This is silly.

    For one thing, the Fourteenth Amendment supersedes the First, having been passed later.

    • orclev@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      11 months ago

      It is silly, but I’m pretty sure the order of the amendments doesn’t really factor in. It’s a problem if two amendments are in conflict with each other, and generally if the intent of a later amendment was to modify some aspect of a prior one, it explicitly does so by specifying what parts of the previous amendment are modified, removed, or added to (although the only time I’m aware of that that applied was when the 21st amendment repealed the 18th amendment). Generally the amendments are additive and no particular ordering is implied.

      • IHeartBadCode@kbin.social
        3·
        11 months ago

        Actually neat thing about the 14th amendment. It gives rise to the doctrine of Incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

        The 14th amendment fundamentally modified the separation of Federal and State governments a bit, which makes sense given the background of the whole “it’s a result of the Confederates losing the Civil War.”

        However all this said, the first amendment doesn’t extend into infinity. No right does that. The various Courts have agreed that speech is not protected in the commission of a crime.