No. 23SA300, Anderson 0. Griswold - Election Law -Fourteenth Amendment - First Amendment —Political Questions - Hearsay.
- Report
Mentions
See All
Jason Scott Montoya @JasonSMontoya
·
Dec 20, 2023
- Curated in Donald Trump 2024
Jason Scott Montoya @JasonSMontoya
·
Dec 20, 2023
- Post
"President Trump asks us to hold that Section Three disqualifies every oathbreaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one and that it bars oath-breakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land. Both results are inconsistent with the plain language and history of Section Three."
Jason Scott Montoya @JasonSMontoya
·
Dec 20, 2023
- Post
"Insurrection (Noah Webster’s dictionary (1860): A rising against civil or political authority; the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of law in a city or state. It is equivalent to SEDITION, except that sedition expresses a less extensive rising of citizens.
In light of these and other proffered definitions, the district court concluded that “an insurrection as used in Section Three is (1) a public use of force or threat of force (2) by a group of people (3) to hinder or prevent execution of the Constitution of the United States.” Anderson, ¶ 240
the district court concluded that “an insurrection as used in Section Three is (1) a public use of force or threat of force (2) by a group of people (3) to hinder or prevent execution of the Constitution of the United States.” Anderson, ¶ 240."
Jason Scott Montoya @JasonSMontoya
·
Dec 20, 2023
- Post
“Insurrection is distinguished from rout, riot, and offenses connected with mob violence by the fact that, in insurrection, there is an organized and armed uprising against authority or operations of government, while crimes growing out of mob violence, however serious they may be and however numerous the participants, are simply unlawful acts in disturbance of the peace which do not threaten the stability of the government or the existence of political society.”
Jason Scott Montoya @JasonSMontoya
·
Dec 20, 2023
- Post
The state's rights argument comes back around in an unexpected way.
Accordingly, states exercise their plenary appointment power not only to regulate the electors themselves, but also to regulate candidate access to presidential ballots. Absent a separate constitutional constraint, then, states may exercise their plenary appointment power to limit presidential ballot access to those candidates who are constitutionally qualified to hold the office of President. And nothing in the U.S. Constitution expressly precludes states from limiting access to the presidential ballot to such candidates. See Lindsay v. Bowen, 750 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2014).