Connect with us

Published

on

BREAKING: Supreme Court Restores Trump To Presidential Ballot, Rejecting State Bids To Ban Him Over Capitol Attack—-WASHINGTON (AP) – The Supreme Court on Monday restored Donald Trump to 2024 presidential primary ballots, rejecting state attempts to hold the Republican former president accountable for the Capitol riot.

The justices ruled a day before the Super Tuesday primaries that states cannot invoke a post-Civil War constitutional provision to keep presidential candidates from appearing on ballots. That power resides with Congress, the court wrote in an unsigned opinion.

The outcome ends efforts in Colorado, Illinois, Maine and elsewhere to kick Trump, the front-runner for his party’s nomination, off the ballot because of his attempts to undo his loss in the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden, culminating in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

Trump’s case was the first at the Supreme Court dealing with a provision of the 14th Amendment that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again.

Colorado’s Supreme Court, in a first-of-its-kind ruling, had decided that the provision, Section 3, could be applied to Trump, who that court found incited the Capitol attack. No court before had applied Section 3 to a presidential candidate.

Some election observers have warned that a ruling requiring congressional action to implement Section 3 could leave the door open to a renewed fight over trying to use the provision to disqualify Trump in the event he wins the election. In one scenario, a Democratic-controlled Congress could try to reject certifying Trump’s election on Jan. 6, 2025, under the clause.

The issue then could return to the court, possibly in the midst of a full-blown constitutional crisis.

Both sides had requested fast work by the court, which heard arguments less than a month ago, on Feb. 8. The justices seemed poised then to rule in Trump’s favor.

Trump had been kicked off the ballots in Colorado, Maine and Illinois, but all three rulings were on hold awaiting the Supreme Court‘s decision.

The case is the court‘s most direct involvement in a presidential election since Bush v. Gore, a decision delivered a quarter-century ago that effectively handed the 2000 election to Republican George W. Bush. And it’s just one of several cases involving Trump directly or that could affect his chances of becoming president again, including a case scheduled for arguments in late April about whether he can be criminally prosecuted on election interference charges, including his role in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack. The timing of the high court‘s intervention has raised questions about whether Trump will be tried before the November election.

The arguments in February were the first time the high court had heard a case involving Section 3. The two-sentence provision, intended to keep some Confederates from holding office again, says that those who violate oaths to support the Constitution are barred from various positions including congressional offices or serving as presidential electors. But it does not specifically mention the presidency.

Conservative and liberal justices questioned the case against Trump. Their main concern was whether Congress must act before states can invoke the 14th Amendment. There also were questions about whether the president is covered by the provision.

The lawyers for Republican and independent voters who sued to remove Trump’s name from the Colorado ballot had argued that there is ample evidence that the events of Jan. 6 constituted an insurrection and that it was incited by Trump, who had exhorted a crowd of his supporters at a rally outside the White House to “fight like hell.” They said it would be absurd to apply Section 3 to everything but the presidency or that Trump is somehow exempt. And the provision needs no enabling legislation, they argued.

Trump’s lawyers mounted several arguments for why the amendment can’t be used to keep him off the ballot. They contended the Jan. 6 riot wasn’t an insurrection and, even if it was, Trump did not go to the Capitol or join the rioters. The wording of the amendment also excludes the presidency and candidates running for president, they said. Even if all those arguments failed, they said, Congress must pass legislation to reinvigorate Section 3.

The case was decided by a court that includes three justices appointed by Trump when he was president. They have considered many Trump-related cases in recent years, declining to embrace his bogus claims of fraud in the 2020 election and refusing to shield tax records from Congress and prosecutors in New York.

The 5-4 decision in Bush v. Gore case more than 23 years ago was the last time the court was so deeply involved in presidential politics. Justice Clarence Thomas is the only member of the court who was on the bench then. Thomas has ignored calls by some Democratic lawmakers to step aside from the Trump case because his wife, Ginni, supported Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election results and attended the rally that preceded the storming of the Capitol by Trump supporters.

0Shares
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Breaking

JUST IN: Minister Adebayo Adelabu WhatsApp Number Hacked [DETAILS]

Published

on

Minister Adebayo

•Minister Of Power, Adebayo Adelabu WhatsApp Number has been Hacked.

THECLOUDNGR The WhatsApp number of Nigeria’s Minister of Power, Adebayo Adelabu, has reportedly been hacked, prompting a warning from his spokesperson, Bolaji Tunji.

The announcement was made in a brief notice sent to the Daily Post by Tunji on Thursday night.

Tunji urged Nigerians to ignore any requests for money or financial assistance originating from the compromised phone number, stating, “HM of power number has been hacked on WhatsApp. Kindly disregard any appeal for money or any assistance for financial support through the number 08022901928.”

This incident follows closely on the heels of similar security breaches involving other government officials.

Just six days prior, the WhatsApp number of the Minister of Education, Prof. Tahir Mamman, was hacked, and earlier, the same fate befell the Minister of Sports Development, Senator John Enoh.

TCN recalls that the WhatsApp number of the Governor of Akwa Ibom State, Umo Eno, in August was also hacked by fraudsters, leading to an attempt to defraud several of his contacts.

The incident came to light when some individuals on the governor’s contact list received messages from his WhatsApp number, requesting that money be sent to a specified account with a promise of a refund later.

In a related incident, Osun State Government, in July issued a public alert on the security breach of Governor Ademola Adeleke‘s official telephone number.

0Shares
Continue Reading

News

Bobrisky: Why I Didn’t File Suit Against VeryDarkMan – Falana

Published

on

Falana

Bobrisky: Why I Didn’t File Suit Against VeryDarkManFalana—-Prominent human rights lawyer, Femi Falana, SAN, has revealed that he is resisting the urge to file criminal charges against a blogger, Martins Otse, who is better known as VeryDarkMan.

The blogger had recently published an audio clip accusing Falana of helping cross-dresser Idris Okuneye, popularly known as Bobrisky, secure a pardon.

Falana clarified that he has no connection with Bobrisky.

Speaking for the first time since the audio surfaced, Falana addressed the situation, stating that VeryDarkMan released a recording of a supposed conversation between Bobrisky and an unidentified person. In the clip, Bobrisky allegedly claimed to have bribed officials of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) with ₦15 million to drop a money laundering case against him.

The recording also suggested that Bobrisky reached out to Falana’s son, Folarin (Falz), seeking his father’s influence to obtain a presidential pardon, with a demand for ₦10 million.

The House of Representatives is currently investigating the allegations, and the Minister of Interior, Olubunmi Tunji-Ojo, has established an independent panel to look into the accusations against officers of the Nigerian Correctional Service.

Appearing on Channels TV’s Politics Today, Falana criticized the audio, stating that he would have pursued legal action if not for his ongoing advocacy for the decriminalization of free speech.

Falana remarked, “Bobrisky never spoke to me. I’ve never met him. I don’t know him from Adam. He was alleged to have spoken to my son, Folarin (Falz).” He continued by explaining that his son did receive a call from Bobrisky on May 4, requesting financial assistance to secure a placement in a VIP section of the prison. Falz, however, refused to engage, asking Bobrisky to only make requests through official prison channels.

Falana added, “We are going to examine the call logs… My son has never negotiated fees on behalf of anyone.”

The senior lawyer emphasized that although he had the opportunity to file a criminal case, he chose not to, given his role in a broader campaign across West Africa aimed at decriminalizing freedom of expression.

“This campaign is being coordinated by the Media Foundation for West Africa, where I’m a board member… We have succeeded in getting Liberia, Ghana, and Sierra Leone to decriminalize free expression. We are appealing to other countries to follow suit.”

He cautioned, however, that freedom of expression does not justify defamation or blackmail, and expressed his intent to take civil action if an acceptable apology is not offered.

Falana concluded, “We have asked for a retraction and an apology… If we don’t receive them, we will initiate civil proceedings in the High Court.”

0Shares
Continue Reading

Trending

0Shares