律师带领一个两党竞选取消前总统唐纳德·特朗普在各州2024年投票中的资格表示，明尼苏达州、科罗拉多州或密歇根州的最高法院“很有可能”在年底前就此问题做出裁决，这将引发美国最高法院的紧急审查。
“这个问题需要在打印任何选票之前得到理想的决定，我希望并期待这个决定对我们有利，”本·克莱门茨说，他是人们的言论自由背后的一个法律倡导组织一些宪法上的挑战特朗普的候选人资格。
法官在科罗拉多州和明尼苏达州上周，一些选民团体提起诉讼，指控宪法中一个经常被忽视的部分——第14修正案第3条——禁止特朗普参加州投票。
科罗拉多州地方法院预计将在本月做出初步裁决。
在...的法庭密歇根本周将受理针对特朗普的类似案件，因为他的律师反诉该州的官员强行将他列入选票。
“我们人民有义务，国务卿有义务，法院有义务执行并赋予第14修正案第3节以意义。即使这可能在政治上很难，”克莱门茨在美国广播公司的“本周”节目中说
的第3节第十四修正案在内战后被批准，以防止前邦联叛军被选为政府角色。它说，任何宣誓“作为美国官员支持宪法”的人，然后“参与暴动或叛乱”或“援助或安慰敌人”的人不能担任公职。
特朗普的批评者声称，鉴于特朗普与2021年1月6日美国国会大厦骚乱的联系以及阻止认证乔·拜登总统选举胜利的努力，特朗普显然违反了第3条。
“这是非常明确的，”哈佛大学法学教授和宪法学者劳伦斯·特洛布说。“很可能至少有一个州法院会裁定，第14修正案的语言是言出必行的，适用于这个明显的案件。”
特朗普称这些诉讼是“荒谬的阴谋论”和“选举干涉”。他的法律团队认为在法庭文件中宪法第一修正案的言论自由权保护前总统免受参与叛乱的指控。
特朗普的律师斯科特·盖斯勒(Scott Gessler)上周在科罗拉多州的法庭上为他辩护，称那里的第14修正案挑战“反民主”，并声称“它看起来会扼杀机会”...对数百万科罗拉多人、科罗拉多共和党人和无党派选民来说，他们能够选择并投票给他们想要的总统候选人。”
两名著名的保守派法律学者写道，取消特朗普资格的宪法论点获得了动力分析在宾夕法尼亚大学的法律评论中，第3条的结论是“有效、可执行和自动执行”——并适用于特朗普。
“他们与联邦主义者协会有联系，不像我，他们不是自由主义者，我认为这一事实增加了可信度，”部落说。
根据这一理论，每个国务卿都有权单方面取消特朗普的选票，这一说法至少在一定程度上得到了支持2012年上诉法院的一项裁决从现在开始-最高法院法官-特朗普提名人-尼尔·戈萨奇。
在关于一名入籍公民寻求竞选科罗拉多州总统的争端中，Gorsuch得出结论认为，“一个州保护政治进程的完整性和实际运作的合法利益，允许它将宪法禁止任职的候选人排除在选票之外。”
“无论你是否被起诉和定罪，这都是一项应该执行的条款，”Tribe谈到第3条时说。
但到目前为止，还没有任何一位国务卿自己执行过第三条。
“任何类型的资格挑战，无论是居住权还是年龄或其他任何问题，都要通过一个渠道，而且只能通过一个渠道，那就是法院，”明尼苏达州国务卿史蒂夫·西蒙(Steve Simon)坚持说，他是一名民主党人。
“我们不是调查办公室。我们不是执法部门。那些将要对谁从事了什么行为以及它是否上升到宪法剥夺资格的水平进行法律诉讼的人——那是法院将做的，”他说。
美国广播公司新闻法律分析师、前特朗普司法部官员莎拉·伊斯古尔(Sarah Isgur)说，这个案件“很棘手”。
特朗普司法部前官员、美国广播公司新闻法律分析师莎拉·伊斯古尔(Sarah Isgur)表示，唐纳德·特朗普竞选第二任期的第14修正案面临众多法律挑战。
美国广播公司新闻
“1月6日是法律意义上‘暴动’还是‘叛乱’?唐纳德·特朗普‘参与’了那场起义吗?”伊斯古尔谈到法庭必须权衡的问题。“另一个问题，我认为这一个更困难，是第3条的语言实际上只适用于宣誓就职的美国官员。当唐纳德·特朗普宣誓就任总统时，他没有宣誓就职美国官员。”
克莱门茨认为他的案子很有说服力，最高法院很难忽视。
“第3条的目的是说，某些人从事的行为非常恶劣，对我们的民主构成了威胁，”他说，“即使他们得到了大多数美国人的支持，他们也不应该服务。”
14th Amendment challenges to Trump's candidacy are likely Supreme Court bound
The attorney leading abipartisan campaignto disqualify former President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot in every state says there's a "very good chance" a top court in Minnesota, Colorado or Michigan will rule on the issue before the end of the year -- teeing up urgent review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"This question needs to be decided ideally before any ballots are printed, and I hope and expect it will be decided in our favor," said Ben Clements, chairman and senior legal advisor ofFree Speech for People, a legal advocacy group behindsome of the constitutional challengesto Trump's candidacy.
Judges inColoradoandMinnesotalast week heard arguments in cases brought by groups of voters alleging an often-overlooked part of the Constitution -- Section 3 of the 14th Amendment -- bars Trump from their state ballots.
The district court in Colorado is expected to deliver an initial ruling this month.
A court inMichiganthis week will take up a similar case against Trump as his attorneys counter-sue officials in that state to forcibly include him on the ballot.
"We the people have an obligation, the secretaries of state have an obligation, the courts have an obligation to enforce and give meaning to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Even if it might be politically hard," Clements said on ABC's "This Week."
Section 3 of the14th Amendmentwas ratified after the Civil War to keep former Confederate rebels from being elected to government roles. It says anyone who took an oath "as an officer of the United States to support the Constitution" and who then "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" or gave "aid or comfort to the enemy" cannot hold office.
Trump's critics allege he clearly violated Section 3 given his connection to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol and efforts to block certification of President Joe Biden's election victory.
"It's very clear cut," said Harvard Law professor and constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe. "The odds are that at least one state court is going to decide that the language of the 14th Amendment means what it says and says what it means, applying in this obvious case."
Trump has called the lawsuits an "absurd conspiracy theory" and "election interference." His legal team arguesin court documentsthat the First Amendment right to free speech protects the former president from allegations he engaged in insurrection.
Trump attorney Scott Gessler, defending him in court in Colorado last week, called the 14th Amendment challenge there "anti-democratic" and contended that "it looks to extinguish the opportunity ... for millions of Coloradans, Colorado Republicans and unaffiliated voters to be able to choose and vote for the presidential candidate they want."
The constitutional argument for disqualifying Trump gained steam after two prominent conservative legal scholars wrotean analysisin the University of Pennsylvania Law Review concluding that Section 3 is "valid, enforceable, and self-executing" -- and applies to Trump.
"The fact that they are associated with the Federalist Society, that, unlike me, they are not liberals, I think adds credibility," Tribe said.
The claim, under this theory, that each secretary of state has the power to unilaterally remove Trump from ballots is backed up, at least in part, bya 2012 appeals court rulingfrom now-Supreme Court justice -- and Trump nominee -- Neil Gorsuch.
In a dispute over a naturalized citizen seeking to run for president in Colorado, Gorsuch concluded "a state's legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office."
"This is a provision that's supposed to operate whether or not you are prosecuted and convicted," Tribe said of Section 3.
But so far, no secretary of state has enforced Section 3 on their own.
"Eligibility challenges of any kind, whether it's residency or age or anything else, go through one channel and one channel alone, and that's the court," insisted Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon, a Democrat.
"We're not an investigatory office. We're not a law enforcement office. The ones who are going to make the legal calls about who engaged in what conduct and whether it rises to the level of constitutional disqualification -- that's what a court will do," he said.
The case "is tough," said Sarah Isgur, an ABC News legal analyst and former Trump Justice Department official.
"Was Jan. 6 an 'insurrection' or 'rebellion' in that legal sense of the term? Did Donald Trump 'engage' in that insurrection?" Isgur said of questions the courts will have to weigh. "The other problem, and I think this one's more difficult, is that the language of Section 3 actually only applies to people who took the oath of office as officers of the U.S. When Donald Trump took the oath for president, he did not take the oath for an officer of the U.S."
Clements believes his cases are compelling and will be difficult for the Supreme Court to ignore.
"The purpose of Section 3 was to say certain people engage in conduct that's so egregious that is such a threat to our democracy," he said, "that even if they have the support of the majority of Americans -- they should not serve."
