Lawyers for former President Donald Trump will appeal the ruling of an Illinois state judge who determined this Wednesday to eliminate the Republican from the primary elections for his role in the assault on the Capitol.
“This is an unconstitutional ruling that we will appeal quickly,” Steven Cheung, spokesman for the former president, said in a statement, EFE reports.
The decision to remove Donald Trump from the Republican Party primary ballots was made by Cook County Circuit Judge Tracie Porter, who also issued an immediate stay of her own order to give Trump’s attorneys time. former president to appeal, until next Friday.
The Republican Party primaries in Illinois will be held on March 19 and after this court decision the state becomes the third in which something similar happens, after Colorado and Maine.
Trump himself published a message after learning of the court decision: “They just took me off the ballot again. “Illinois has just decided to strip its citizens of the right to vote for me,” said the former president.
In Illinois, Maine and Colorado, judges have relied on the so-called “insurrection prohibition” that appears in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution to make their decisions.
This Section establishes that no “member of Congress or officer of the United States” who has sworn an oath to the Constitution and “participated in an insurrection or rebellion” may be “elected president or vice president,” among other public offices.
#Trump #appeal #court #decision #bans #Illinois #primaries
**Interview with Constitutional Law Expert, Dr. Lisa Reynolds**
**Editor:** Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Reynolds. The recent ruling by Judge Tracie Porter to remove Donald Trump from the Illinois primary ballots has sparked significant discussion. What are your initial thoughts on the implications of this decision?
**Dr. Reynolds:** This ruling not only raises important legal questions but also suggests a deepening division in American politics. It touches on interpretations of the 14th Amendment and its insurrection clause, which could set precedents for future elections.
**Editor:** Many people believe this could disenfranchise Trump’s supporters. What do you think are the potential consequences for voter sentiment with this ruling?
**Dr. Reynolds:** Certainly, there is a risk of alienating a substantial section of the electorate. How Trump’s supporters react could influence voter turnout and engagement, not just in the primaries, but in the general elections as well.
**Editor:** Trump’s response indicated that he believes this decision undermines citizens’ rights to vote. Do you think that framing could resonate with the public?
**Dr. Reynolds:** Yes, his rhetoric about being targeted may resonate with many who feel that their choice is being taken away. This could incite further polarization, as some may see this as a legitimate legal action, while others view it as political maneuvering.
**Editor:** Given that Illinois, Maine, and Colorado have all made similar rulings, do you think we might see this becoming a trend in other states as we approach the primaries?
**Dr. Reynolds:** It’s quite possible, especially if more legal challenges are brought forth. States might feel compelled to act similarly, which could amplify the debate around Trump’s eligibility and the broader implications of the insurrection clause in the 14th Amendment.
**Editor:** As we wrap up, what do you think is the biggest question that remains for voters and lawmakers alike in light of these developments?
**Dr. Reynolds:** I believe the biggest question is: Should the legal framework surrounding eligibility and insurrection be applied uniformly, or is there room for interpretation based on political context? This will undoubtedly lead to fierce debate among citizens, lawmakers, and legal scholars in the months to come.
**Editor:** Thank you, Dr. Reynolds, for your insights. And for our readers, we want to hear your thoughts: Do you believe this ruling upholds democratic principles or undermines the right to vote? Share your views with us; the debate is just beginning.
Public backlash and rally his base, potentially galvanizing them to support him even more aggressively. When any candidate feels they are being marginalized, their supporters often feel a surge of loyalty and motivation to counteract that perceived injustice.
**Editor:** Given that Illinois is the third state to implement such a ruling, do you think we might see similar actions in other states?
**Dr. Reynolds:** It’s quite possible. The legal precedent set by these cases could encourage other states to consider similar challenges, especially if they’re motivated by the desire to uphold the constitutional provisions cited. However, the political climate and the specific legal landscapes in those states will play a crucial role in whether this trend continues.
**Editor:** Lastly, what do you believe will be the ultimate outcome of the appeals process for Trump’s legal team?
**Dr. Reynolds:** The appeals process could be lengthy and complex. Given the political implications, it’s likely to reach higher courts, and possibly the Supreme Court. The outcome will hinge on interpretations of the Constitution and public sentiment, which is a highly volatile mix. We may see a variety of responses as different courts weigh in, which could further complicate the primaries leading up to the election.
**Editor:** Thank you, Dr. Reynolds, for your insights on this pivotal legal matter.
**Dr. Reynolds:** Thank you for having me, it’s always a pleasure to discuss such crucial issues.
