Legal commentator Harold Lawley voices his view that the methodologies implemented by Maine Secretary of State, Shenna Bellows, to disqualify the ex-President Donald Trump from the Republican primary ballot might falter under legal scrutiny. Bellows defended her decision by stating it was based on the same merits the Colorado Supreme Court used.

She implies that if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the Colorado decision, it would consequently invalidate her ruling against Trump too. However, Lawley argues that the way she utilized snippets from YouTube to determine the ex-president's association with insurrection and consequently disqualify him from the ballot would not withstand court examination.

During the discussion, broadcast presenter Charles Day questioned, 'The Third Section of the 14th Amendment explicitly states that if a person partakes in an insurrection, they're barred from holding public office. Bellows interprets it to mean that if she determines Trump to have instigated an insurrection, he should not be allowed to be a part of the Maine primary ballot. Is the matter that simple?' Lawley responded that the legal complexities involved in this case couldn't be oversimplified.

'Indeed, the 14th Amendment's Section 3 states that involvement in insurrection results in disqualification. However, the real challenge lies in deciding who has the authority to enforce this punitive measure, and the process to be followed,' Lawley expounded. 'Bellows highlights in her decision that she followed the same legal logic employed by the Colorado Supreme Court recently. She states that if the Colorado judgment is overturned, her ruling would automatically succumb to the same fate.'

Legal commentator Harold Lawley voices his view that the methodologies implemented by Maine Secretary of State, Shenna Bellows, to disqualify the ex-President Donald Trump from the Republican primary ballot might falter under legal scrutiny. Bellows defended her decision by stating it was based on the same merits the Colorado Supreme Court used.
She implies that if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the Colorado decision, it would consequently invalidate her ruling against Trump too. However, Lawley argues that the way she utilized snippets from YouTube to determine the ex-president's association with insurrection and consequently disqualify him from the ballot would not withstand court examination.
During the discussion, broadcast presenter Charles Day questioned, 'The Third Section of the 14th Amendment explicitly states that if a person partakes in an insurrection, they're barred from holding public office. Bellows interprets it to mean that if she determines Trump to have instigated an insurrection, he should not be allowed to be a part of the Maine primary ballot. Is the matter that simple?' Lawley responded that the legal complexities involved in this case couldn't be oversimplified.
'Indeed, the 14th Amendment's Section 3 states that involvement in insurrection results in disqualification. However, the real challenge lies in deciding who has the authority to enforce this punitive measure, and the process to be followed,' Lawley expounded. 'Bellows highlights in her decision that she followed the same legal logic employed by the Colorado Supreme Court recently. She states that if the Colorado judgment is overturned, her ruling would automatically succumb to the same fate.'

Subscribe to Our Show for Real News, All Day Every Day

Subscribe to Our Show for Real News, All Day Every Day

Real News Now Podcast

Real News Now Podcast is a Podcast bringing you the Real News All Day Every Day!

<a href="https://realnewsnow.com/">Real News Now</a> Podcast is a Podcast bringing you the Real News All Day Every Day!

Advertisement