Jonathan Turley, a legal analyst for Fox News, recently expressed concerns about a legal theory he deems highly dangerous, particularly in its application to former President Donald Trump.
This theory revolves around the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause and its potential use to disqualify Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot — an interpretation which Turley said is the “most dangerous legal theory to come up in years.”
The Colorado Supreme Court is currently deliberating on this matter, following a decision by District Court Judge Sarah B. Wallace. Wallace ruled against a group of Republican and unaffiliated voters who claimed Trump should be disqualified due to his alleged involvement in the January 6 events. Although she concluded that Trump incited an insurrection, she dismissed the theory that this could disqualify him from future elections.
During a discussion with host Brian Kilmeade, Turley expressed his skepticism about the validity of this legal approach.
“Well, I have never, as you have noted, had faith in this theory. I think that it’s unfounded both constitutionally and historically. I also think it’s perhaps the most dangerous legal theory to come up in years. What they’re suggesting is that the 14th Amendment, in section 3 within that amendment, can block a candidate like Trump from the presidential ballot. Just on the vote of these judges,” Turley said.
“They are treating January 6th as an insurrection. Something that Trump’s never been charged with he has never even been charged with incitement. And, yet, this effort is going forward. And many of the advocates are going to blue states and Colorado is really the hail Mary throw. You know, you had a lower court judge, Judge Wallace, who was very critical of Trump. But made fast work of this theory. And tossed it out. They are now going to, as favorable a state Supreme Court as you could possibly find. So, if they fail in front of the Colorado Supreme Court. It’s a massive loss for this effort.”
The 14th Amendment, established post-Civil War, was designed to address issues arising from the rebellion against the United States government. The plaintiffs in this case argue that Trump violated his oath of office by allegedly inciting a violent mob on January 6, 2021, in an attempt to remain in power. This case, therefore, tests the boundaries of the 14th Amendment and its application in contemporary political scenarios.
Scroll down to leave a comment and share your thoughts.