by Jim Hoft, The Gateway Pundit:
During the Supreme Court oral arguments for Trump v. Anderson, Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered a pointed reminder that former President Donald Trump has not been formally charged with insurrection.
Thursday’s proceedings centered on the contested application of the 14th Amendment’s prohibition against insurrectionists holding office, which has been invoked in an attempt to disqualify Trump from the 2024 primary ballot in Colorado.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled in a 4-3 decision to keep President Trump off the 2024 Primary ballot in the state. The Colorado high court has been the only court to rule this way out of several decisions or dismissals in other states.
The legal theories are based on Section 3 of the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment which states public officials who have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the US may be disqualified from public office.
During the proceedings, Justice Kavanaugh directly addressed Colorado attorney Jason Murray, emphasizing the absence of criminal charges against Trump related to insurrection.
Kavanaugh’s remarks shed light on the broader implications of the case, questioning the appropriateness of state-level decisions on matters potentially covered by federal statutes against insurrection. Kavanaugh highlighted existing federal statutes, like Section 2383 of Title 18, which already address the issue of insurrection.
Kavanaugh: “Some of the rhetoric of your position seems to suggest, unless the states can do this, no one can prevent insurrectionists from holding federal office. But obviously, Congress has enacted statutes, including one still in effect, Section 2383 of Title 18. [It] prohibits insurrection – it’s a federal criminal statute. And, if you’re convicted of that you are – it says, ‘shall be disqualified from holding any office.’ And so, there is a federal statute on the books, but President Trump has not been charged with that. So what are we to make of that?
Murray: “Two things, your honor. Section 2383 was initially enacted about six years before Section 3. It wasn’t meant as implementing legislation related to Section 3. And I would emphasize that by the time that Section 3 was ratified, most Confederates had already received criminal pardon.”
Kavanaugh: “I guess the question is a little bit different, which is, if the concern you have—which I understand—is that insurrectionists should not be able to hold federal office, there is a tool to ensure that that does not happen, namely, federal prosecution of insurrectionists. And if convicted, Congress made clear, you are automatically barred from holding a federal office. That tool exists, you agree, and could be used but could be used against someone who committed…”
LISTEN:
Justice Kavanaugh, referring to historical precedent, suggested the dormant nature of Section 3 over the past 150 years reflected a longstanding understanding based on legal history and congressional action or inaction.
Read More @ TheGatewayPundit.com
