Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Gallery

Franklin Graham Breaks Silence in Support of Trump Ruling

This article was originally published at StateOfUnion.org. Publications approved for syndication have permission to republish this article, such as Microsoft News, Yahoo News, Newsbreak, UltimateNewswire and others. To learn more about syndication opportunities, visit About Us.
The Fourteenth Amendment

Christian evangelist Franklin Graham celebrated former President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court victory, emphasizing its importance in protecting future elections. The ruling prevents states from disqualifying a candidate from the ballot using the Fourteenth Amendment’s “Insurrection Clause.”

Unanimous decision

“Congratulations to former President @realDonaldTrump on winning the landmark case before the Supreme Court—it was a unanimous decision,” Graham said. The unanimous decision overturns a controversial 4-3 opinion and sets a precedent against disqualifying Trump in a similar manner.

Section 3

The Supreme Court’s ruling swiftly ended the legal fight over whether states can bar Trump from their ballots based on the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. The court reversed the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision, emphasizing that states cannot determine the eligibility of a presidential candidate or other federal office-seekers under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Important message

“This important ruling prohibits states from removing him from the election ballot. This is not only a win for former President Trump, but sends an important message and helps protect future elections and candidates in our country,” Graham added.

The ballot

“Indeed, the ruling is a massive victory for Trump, as the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a state does not have the authority to disqualify a candidate from the ballot using the Fourteenth Amendment’s ‘Insurrection Clause.’ This 9-0 ruling overturned the controversial 4-3 opinion of the Colorado Supreme Court and effectively kills all efforts from other states attempting to disqualify Trump from the ballot in this same manner,” he said.

Federal offices

The Court clarified that states cannot enforce Section 3 against federal offices, highlighting the constitutional implications. “We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency,” the Court wrote, adding that “granting the States that authority would invert the Fourteenth Amendment’s rebalancing of federal and state power.”

Asserted power

“Nor have the respondents identified any tradition of state enforcement of Section 3 against federal officeholders or candidates in the years following ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such a lack of historical precedent is generally a telling indication of a severe constitutional problem with the asserted power,” the court wrote.

Truth Social

Trump lauded the victory on Truth Social, hinting at a press conference on the matter at Mar-a-Lago. “BIG WIN FOR AMERICA!!!” Trump wrote.

Chaos and disruptions

The ruling clarified that it is Congress’ responsibility, not that of the states, to enforce Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, thereby applying to all states, not just Colorado. This decision underscores the need for a consistent approach to the application of the 14th Amendment provision across the nation to avoid potential chaos and disruptions in the electoral process.

Electoral integrity

The ruling has sparked intense debate due to its potential impact on the 2024 election and the broader context of accountability and electoral integrity.

A presidential election

The court’s decision highlighted concerns about the potential chaos that could arise from a fragmented approach to determining candidate eligibility in different states, particularly during a presidential election year.

Potential implications

It’s noteworthy that the court’s ruling did not delve into an analysis or determination of whether Trump’s actions constituted an insurrection, leaving this crucial question unresolved. The absence of a finding regarding Trump’s engagement in insurrection raises significant legal and political questions about the application of the 14th Amendment’s third clause and its potential implications for presidential candidates.

Maine and Illinois

Following the ruling, Trump celebrated the decision and this comprehensive victory ensures his presence on the Colorado primary ballot and ends similar legal challenges in other states such as Maine and Illinois.

The broader issue

The implications of this ruling extend beyond Trump’s candidacy, as it addresses the broader issue of how the 14th Amendment’s provisions should be enforced and who has the authority to determine the eligibility of federal office-seekers.

Continued debate

The ruling’s impact on the ongoing political discourse, the electoral process, and potential future challenges to federal officeholders will likely be subjects of continued debate and scrutiny.

Important questions

The Supreme Court’s ruling on the attempt to remove Donald Trump from state ballots has profound legal, political, and constitutional significance. It underscores the complexities of interpreting and applying constitutional provisions in the context of high-stakes national elections and raises important questions about the enforcement of the 14th Amendment’s third clause.

Discourse on accountability

As the 2024 election approaches, the implications of this ruling will continue to shape the electoral landscape and the broader discourse on accountability and the rule of law.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You May Also Like

Entertainment

This article was originally published at StateOfUnion.org. Publications approved for syndication have permission to republish this article, such as Microsoft News, Yahoo News, Newsbreak,...

Politics

This article was originally published at StateOfUnion.org. Publications approved for syndication have permission to republish this article, such as Microsoft News, Yahoo News, Newsbreak,...

Media

This article was originally published at StateOfUnion.org. Publications approved for syndication have permission to republish this article, such as Microsoft News, Yahoo News, Newsbreak,...

Politics

This article was originally published at StateOfUnion.org. Publications approved for syndication have permission to republish this article, such as Microsoft News, Yahoo News, Newsbreak,...

Entertainment

This article was originally published at StateOfUnion.org. Publications approved for syndication have permission to republish this article, such as Microsoft News, Yahoo News, Newsbreak,...

Media

This article was originally published at StateOfUnion.org. Publications approved for syndication have permission to republish this article, such as Microsoft News, Yahoo News, Newsbreak,...

Media

This article was originally published at StateOfUnion.org. Publications approved for syndication have permission to republish this article, such as Microsoft News, Yahoo News, Newsbreak,...