Trump’s 2024 Hopes Shattered by Explosive Legal Briefs – Insurrection or Not?

by Jessica

Former President Donald Trump’s aspirations for a 2024 presidential run face a formidable challenge as explosive amicus briefs flood the Supreme Court.

As reported by Raw Story on Wednesday, January 31, 2024, the briefs are tearing apart the notion that Trump’s actions on January 6, 2021, are shielded simply because they didn’t lead to a Civil War.

Former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal brought these groundbreaking legal analyses to the forefront during an exclusive appearance on MSNBC’s “The Last Word” with Lawrence O’Donnell, highlighting one crucial brief authored by Constitutional scholar brothers Khil Amar and Vikram Amar.

Katyal contends that this brief is a game-changer, dismantling Trump’s defense argument that an insurrection must mirror the magnitude of a Civil War to warrant disqualification under the 14th Amendment.

“This totally puts to rest this idea that Donald Trump has, which is that you have to engage in an insurrection just like the Civil War; nothing else qualifies under the 14th Amendment,” Katyal emphatically declared.

O’Donnell delved further, referencing another impactful brief authored by 25 professional scholars with expertise in 19th-century American history.

This brief meticulously dissects the aims of the 14th Amendment’s disqualification clause in Section 3, emphasizing its applicability to the president without necessitating prolonged congressional intervention.

Collectively, Katyal perceives these legal documents as “reciting all of the evidence from the time of the 14th Amendment,” unequivocally stating, “no way” was the amendment solely intended for members of the Confederacy.

“The 14th Amendment wasn’t just about the Civil War; it was about making sure that people who were insurrectionists, who had given aid to comfort, are not able to be voted for,” Katyal explained.

The Amar brothers’ brief delves into the foresight of the 14th Amendment’s authors, portraying it as a timeless provision aimed at preventing future rebellions or insurrections.

Their argument posits that Section 3 of the amendment extends beyond the specific insurrection of the 1860s, applying to all insurrections, past and future, to safeguard against potential threats.

“[I]t referred to all insurrections, past and future, and not merely to ‘the late insurrection’ of the 1860s,” the brief reads.

“It laid down a rule for the benefit of generations yet unborn—for us today, if only we are wise enough and faithful enough to follow its words as written and intended.”

As these legal heavyweights lock horns in the Supreme Court, the fate of Trump’s political resurgence hangs in the balance, creating a high-stakes showdown that could reshape the political landscape for years to come.

Will the court lean towards a narrow interpretation of the 14th Amendment, or will it embrace the broader foresight outlined in these explosive legal briefs? The nation awaits the verdict with bated breath!

Related Posts