Since former U.S. ** Trump announced his candidacy for 2024 in November 2022, there has been a debate about whether he is eligible to run. Some states also cited the relevant constitutional provisions of the United States to prevent him from running for election. But now, a major obstacle to Trump's resurgence as a leader has been removed.
The U.S. Federal Superior Court announced on March 4 that it would revoke the Colorado Superior Court's injunction against Trump to prevent him from running in 2024
In December, the U.S. Colorado Superior Court ruled that Trump was not eligible to run because he was charged with "insurrections" such as Capitol Hill**, which met the requirements of the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Trump rejected the offer and appealed it to the Supreme Court.
The 14th Amendment to the United States, known as the "Rebel Prohibition Order," did not allow anyone to swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution before participating in the uprising. Trump is also said to have been involved in the ** on Capitol Hill on January 6, 2021, as Trump's constant contesting of his election results led his supporters to violently attack parliament to prevent Congress from confirming Biden's victory in the 2020 U.S. ***.
Later, due to the ** incident, the US House of Representatives filed a charge of "sedition" against Trump, and although he was finally cleared by the Senate, he also became the first person in the history of the United States to be ** by the House of Representatives twice**.
That's why Trump was denied a run by many states. Following Colorado, the US states of Maine and Illinois have also cited the ban on insurgents to remove Trump from their state's caucuses. However, while the Colorado case was pending, the judgments of both countries were put on hold.
On March 4, the U.S. Federal High Court ruled that no state has the right to exclude Trump from the first round of voting, a requirement under Article 14 of the Constitution. Under the U.S. Constitution, the application of Section 14 (3) to the federal ** and to candidates confers responsibility on the Congress, not the states"The states may deny a person the right to possess or attempt to own a public office in the state, but the states do not have the authority to apply this provision to the office, especially to the office"。
Although the U.S. Federal High Court's decision targeted Colorado, its consequences were nationwide, meaning that other states could not pass the Rebel Prohibition Act to exclude Trump from the primaries. In this case, the decision of the U.S. Federal High Court is a huge success for Trump, CNN said.
In a speech at Mar-a-Lago, Colorado, after the verdict was announced, Trump said the verdict would "help unify the United States, which is what we need." ”
After the U.S. federal superior court ruled against Colorado, Trump won another victory, winning the Democratic nominee in North Dakota. Now, Trump is ahead of him, winning 10 states that have already had party caucuses, giving him a total of 244 delegate seats. The only one who can compete with him at the moment is the former U.S. representative to the United Nations, Nikki Haley. Haley won her first victory in the Colombian region on March 3, where she secured 43 delegate seats.
The United States will hold a "Super Tuesday" on March 5. On that day, 15 states, including Colorado, and one U.S. overseas region will hold primaries at the same time. The U.S. federal high court's ruling clears the way for Trump's campaign. It was widely believed that Trump would win the state primaries by a wide margin, forcing Hallie to drop his nomination.
Colorado Secretary of State Jenna Griswold expressed displeasure and said:"Colorado should be able to prevent those who violate their oaths from running. "Washington's "Citizens of Duty and Ethics" filed the case in Colorado, issuing a statement saying that "this remains a victory for democracy: Trump will be a rebel." ”
In fact, in the judgment of the US Federal High Court, there were disagreements. Nine Supreme Court justices in the United States, including six conservatives and three liberals. Five of the nine justices agreed with the Supreme Court's decision, while the other four, three of them liberals and one conservative, said the view went too far.
Three liberal judges argue that the view"Cutting off other possible avenues for federal implementation", that is, the United States must first pass the relevant laws before deciding whether to serve as ***, but this is very unlikely. The three judges also noted that the majority view "is so that those accused of treason cannot be challenged in the future." ”
Some legal scholars agree that bringing the issue to the United States Congress is likely to cause more confusion. Atiba Ellis, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio, told British television about the verdict"On"A door", addressing several interpretations of the Constitution that were not mentioned in the case. "The verdict puts the trouble on Parliament, which at that time will be left helpless by bipartisanship within Parliament. ”
There are also some experts who worry that the verdict will be followed by another incident on Capitol Hill after this year's election. According to American political network sources, some experts believe that once Trump wins the November championship, then Trump's critics can choose another way: when Trump wins the election, he will be approved by Congress for the 2024 election. At that point, perhaps, the Democrats will continue to use the "rebel exclusion order" to prevent Trump from entering the White House.
Ned Foley, a constitutional researcher at a university in Ohio, said: "In order to prevent this from happening, the High Court tried to preemptively remove Trump from office after his election, but they did not do so." Trump