Videos tagged with Insurrection Clause

This video discusses Congressman Jamie Raskin's statements regarding the potential disqualification of Donald Trump from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Raskin suggests that if the Supreme Court does not rule on disqualification, Congress might need to act on January 6, 2025, potentially leading to civil war conditions. The video also touches on voter rights and the historical context of the 14th Amendment.

This video analyzes the Supreme Court's decision in the Trump insurrection case, drawing parallels to Second Amendment jurisprudence, particularly the Bruen decision. It highlights the Court's reliance on historical laws rather than the opinions of academic historians when interpreting constitutional rights. The speaker argues that the Court prioritizes actual statutes and legal precedents over subjective historical narratives, a methodology crucial for understanding Second Amendment cases.

This video analyzes the Supreme Court oral arguments regarding the 14th Amendment's Insurrection Clause and its application to Donald Trump's ballot access. The speaker, Mark Smith, a Constitution attorney and member of the US Supreme Court bar, argues that states lack the authority to remove a presidential candidate from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. He highlights concerns raised by justices about inconsistent state standards, the need for Congressional action, and the potential for a self-executing clause to destabilize the federal government.

This video analyzes the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to disqualify Donald Trump from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Host Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney, argues that a textualist interpretation of the amendment, particularly the phrase 'shall have engaged,' suggests it applies to events prior to its 1868 enactment, thus not covering modern events. He further contends that only Congress has the authority to determine an individual's engagement in insurrection, citing historical precedent like Griffin's Case, making state court rulings substantively irrelevant. The discussion emphasizes the importance of constitutional interpretation principles for defending Second Amendment rights.