In a remarkable twist of irony regarding the principles of free speech, @JohnBonifaz, the Co-founder of Free Speech for People, has taken a surprising stance in Massachusetts. He filed a challenge under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, questioning Donald Trump's eligibility to feature on the state's presidential primary and general election ballot. This move, invoking Section 3, also referred to as the Insurrectionist Disqualification Clause alleges that Trump, having allegedly incited the violent January 6th Capitol insurrection, is constitutionally unfit for public office. The juxtaposition of a free-speech advocacy group utilizing a constitutional clause to potentially restrict political participation raises questions about the organization's consistency and underscores the complexity of the issues at hand.
According to Bonifaz, his organization also filed in Illinois to have the former president removed from the ballot.
His filing, when scrutinized through the lens of the First Amendment, appears to face challenges, particularly concerning the Free Speech Clause of the Constitution. The First Amendment, a cornerstone of constitutional rights, states in relevant part:
Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Highlighting the intricacies of this matter, it's crucial to delve into the specifics of the First Amendment, which explicitly recognizes the people's right to peacefully assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances. However, the argument presented, linking Trump to insurrection, appears tenuous as he has not been convicted of such a charge. While aligning with the prevailing media narrative may be tempting, it's essential to scrutinize the narrative's potential hyperbolic nature and the risks it poses to the nation. Trump's expressed concerns about the election fall within the purview of the First Amendment's free speech clause, affirming the complexity of balancing constitutionally protected speech with allegations of incitement and insurrection.
Bonifaz lists on his LinkedIn Profile, "I am a constitutional attorney with more than three decades of experience fighting to defend our democracy and our Constitution." One could wonder how he does not fight for the ability to speak freely. Also is the question of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment that should be addressed.
Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment provides as follows:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
The central issue here is not whether Trump participated in an insurrection, but rather whether an insurrection took place despite the media narrative. We acknowledge that a considerable number of Americans gathered at the Capitol building, initially engaging in a "peaceful and patriotic" march to express their concerns regarding the election. However, this peaceful assembly eventually escalated into a riot that authorities managed to quell within a few hours. The precise moment when the peaceful assembly turned into a riot remains uncertain. Nevertheless, it's essential to recognize that, despite the subsequent events, the individuals did have the right to assemble.
Now let's discuss why Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to remove Trump from the ballot.
Petitioned through a Writ of Certiorari by the American Center for Law and Justice, this legal action pertains to the Colorado ruling regarding the exclusion of Trump from the Colorado Ballot.
The Colorado Supreme Court’s decision is wrong for a host of reasons. As most relevant here, it improperly applied precedent establishing the First Amendment right of political parties, failed to apply precedent repeatedly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment is not a self-executing sword.
The President Is Not an Officer of the United States Covered Within the Disqualification Provision of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment Is Not a Self-Executing Authority for State Courts and Litigants to Use as a Sword Against Presidential Candidates.
The Colorado Supreme Court’s Decision Violates the Colorado Republican Party’s First Amendment Associational Right to Choose Its Own Political Candidates
While we value diverse viewpoints, it's crucial to prioritize facts over attempts to stifle the public's voice. Our judgment should rely on legal precedent and established laws, not the subjective opinions of media pundits. Denying Americans the right to choose their preferred candidate based on unfounded and misleading allegations could lead to significant chaos, considering the abundance of such claims.
We at WeCU are dedicated to delivering the essential facts that impact your daily life, and we're committed to uncovering and sharing them with you. If you find value in our articles, please express your support by giving us a thumbs up or tapping the heart icon. Your comments are always welcomed, and if you genuinely appreciate our efforts, sharing our work would mean the world to us. Unfortunately, social media restrictions are affecting our reach, hindering others from discovering our talented writers and their perspectives. A small donation of just $1 to our site can greatly contribute to preserving free speech. Your readership is appreciated, and if you'd like to donate, you can find us on CashApp at $WecuNews. Thank you for being a part of our community.
Commentaires