Lawyer representing voters in Arizona, Georgia When North Carolina Representatives of their elected parliament filed proceedings alleging that they were prohibited from running for future positions under little-known provisions. Amendment Article 14..
specifically, Section 3 It is written as follows in the Fourteenth Amendment.
“You must not be a congressional senator or representative who has previously sworn to uphold the United States Constitution, was involved in a rebellion or rebellion against the United States, or provided assistance or comfort to its enemies.”
Supporters Except for these representatives Claim it from running for reelection Their active support For those who attacked the US Capitol January 6, 2021Is considered involved in a “riot or rebellion” against the US government.
As a constitutional scholarI say that lawyers seeking disqualification need to climb steep slopes in all of these cases, especially if their argument under the Article 14 amendment conflicts with the Article 1 amendment and the protection of free speech. believe.
It does not stop those who want to hold the elected officials involved in the January 6th Capitol raid.
Issues submitted to GOP personnel. Marjorie Taylor Greene Georgia, Madison Corthorn With North Carolina Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs of Arizona – and Arizona Rep. MarkFinchem – is part of a large national campaign run by a nonprofit organization. Free speech for people When Our revolution..
recently, judgement I rejected those discussions In arizona And North Carolina. Both are on appeal.
The role of green on January 6th
Case Against Georgia Green CongressmanIt provides a useful lens for analyzing this unique constitutional claim.
The Challenge to her candidacy It ended on May 5, when Judge Charles Baudlot of Georgia ruled that: The green should remain Ballot for lawyers trying to run the green Couldn’t prove That she engaged in a riot on January 6, 2021
“Evidence of this issue is insufficient to prove that Congressman Green was” involved in the rebellion or rebellion “under the Fourteenth Amendment,” Judge Charles Baudlot wrote in a ruling.
The proceedings against Green claimed, for example, that she frequently referred to the opposition movement. 2020 presidential election As “our moment of 1776”.
This reference, claimed by lawyers, is a clear reference to and, in fact, the norm for the violent overthrow of existing governments.
They claimed that Green was at least involved in the rebellion by providing aid and comfort to US enemies, or at best deploying such rhetoric.
And after her Latest court hearing April 22, 2022, text message Ascend In it she asked about the possibility that President Donald Trump would declare martial law.
In the text revealed by House Select Committee Investigate what happened on January 6th Green said At that time-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows “The only way to save our republic is for Trump to demand sic law. I don’t know about them,” some members of Congress said in a private chat group. I wanted you to tell him. “
Green insisted on it Her remarks Social media posts encouraged legitimate protests by those who believed the 2020 elections were stolen.
The First revisionShe insists and enables a wide range of free and free speeches, especially political speeches.
Green too Testimony under the oath She was unaware that the protesters intended to interfere with the congressional joint session convened to count voters.
In response to many of the questions posed to her, she claimed it more than 50 times during the hearing. She couldn’t remember..
green Further testimony She encouraged people to come to Washington, DC for a peaceful march, but as some argue, she didn’t help protesters navigate the Capitol.
Tolerant rebel soldier
Immediately after the Civil War of 1866, Section 3 of the Article 14 Amendment was passed to keep the federal government out of the federal position. However, the ban did not last long.
A Blanket amnesty Former South Army soldiers were passed in 1872, requalifying the majority of rebels for reinstatement. In 1898, the ban was removed The last few hundred Former Southern Parliamentarian and Senator.
James Bopp Jr., Lawyer of Kosorn, The Amnesty International Act of 1872 It invalidates Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment and allows Cawthorn to seek elections in the next Republican primary on May 17, 2022.
US District Judge Richard Myers Agree and reject Proceedings against Cawthorn. The district judge ruled that the Amnesty International Act of 1872, which exempted the South Army from the Section 3 ban, is still in force and protects Corthorn from running.
Unlike the case in North Carolina, the proceedings against Green in Georgia were then allowed to proceed by a federal judge. April 18, 2022, US District Judge Amy Totenberg Denied the movement of the green To prevent the proceedings against her and best summarize the constitutional morus raised by the proceedings.
“In this case” Totenberg Written in her 73-page decision“Involves a whirlpool of conflicts of constitutional interests in public imports.” Green Appealed That decision.
Protected freedom of speech
Political speeches have special protection and deserve it. Protesting the government is central to the protection provided by the First Amendment, even if it uses strong, offensive, or unpopular language.
As a result, courts tend to make extensive nets in defining speeches that are subject to the First Amendment.
I think there is something anti-democratic about prohibiting candidates from even running for public office, in addition to the restrictions of the First Amendment.
The notion that voters can choose representatives elected through free and fair elections represents a core principle of the American democratic tradition.
It takes considerable justification to remove the ability of voters to choose who they want to be in public office, and courts have long ruled this way. Encouraging and betting on riots is such a justification, but it remains an open question whether Green’s actions meet the definition of Section 3 of the Article 14 Amendment.
Obviously, if Green indicts the Capitol with a weapon demanding Congress to take the seat of President Trump, her actions will be clear and her disqualification will be justified. But instead of weapons and storms, Green developed her words and electronic posts.
Differences make a difference.
In my view, given the strong protection of the First Amendment’s speech, to prohibit candidates from running for public office, Engage in riots At a much higher rate than previously presented in the proceedings against Green.
Even the demands of Green’s martial law are probably not enough. Strange and false statements are protected by the First Amendment as well as compelling and thoughtful statements.
[Like what you’ve read? Want more? Sign up for The Conversation’s daily newsletter.]
This article will be republished from conversation, A non-profit news site aimed at sharing ideas from academic experts. It was written by: Ronald Sullivan, Harvard University..
Ronald Sullivan does not work, consult, own shares, or receive funds for any company or organization that would benefit from this article.