The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from a former New Mexico county commissioner who was kicked out of office over his participation in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
Former Otero County commissioner Couy Griffin, a cowboy pastor who rode to national political fame by embracing then-President Donald Trump with a series of horseback caravans, is the only elected official thus far to be banned from office in connection with the Capitol attack, which disrupted Congress as it was trying to certify Joe Biden’s 2020 electoral victory over Trump.
At a 2022 trial in state district court, Griffin received the first disqualification from office in over a century under a provision of the 14th Amendment written to prevent former Confederates from serving in government after the Civil War.
Though the Supreme Court ruled this month that states don’t have the ability to bar Trump or other candidates for federal offices from the ballot, the justices said different rules apply to state and local candidates.
Couy was found guilty of trespassing, while Trump is only facing charges, no verdict yet.
trespassing isn’t insurgency
My point is that he’s not found guilty of that yet.
My point is that we can infer he participated in the insurgency without his direct conviction for insurgency. The trespassing conviction is strong enough evidence to make the inference.
But Trump’s role was public and undeniable. No inference is needed. His participation was directly observed by anyone old enough to make a judgement.
Surely you know this by now, a verdict is not required to invoke the ammendment.
Sadly it seems the Supreme Court thinks otherwise for presidential candidates.
Sadly this is why the supreme court is ILLEGITIMATE!
Not from the US, so I could easily be wrong. My understanding is that due process still applies as per the 5th amendment. It would need to be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that he played a role in the insurrection and charged federally.
Section 3 would then be self-executing (I.e. with immediate effect), unless this disability to hold office was removed as outlined in that section. Of course, this presumes a sensible interpretation of the wording used, and not what SCOTUS added - unnecessarily requiring congress to act to both instate and remove the disability to hold office.
It didn’t apply the last time we barred ppl from office.