Skip to main content
News Directory 3
  • Home
  • Business
  • Entertainment
  • Health
  • News
  • Sports
  • Tech
  • World
Menu
  • Home
  • Business
  • Entertainment
  • Health
  • News
  • Sports
  • Tech
  • World
Asmaa Al-Jalal Faces Public Outrage Over "Offensive Remarks" - Saudi News - News Directory 3

Asmaa Al-Jalal Faces Public Outrage Over “Offensive Remarks” – Saudi News

January 17, 2026 David Thompson Sports
News Context
At a glance
  • the Supreme ⁣Court on‌ Monday, January 15, 2024,‌ ruled 6-3 that ​states can disqualify former President ⁤Donald Trump from appearing on the ballot ‌under Section 3 ⁤of the...
  • Section ‍3 of the 14th Amendment, ratified ⁤in 1868, prevents ‍anyone‌ who ‌has​ taken ⁢an oath to support the ⁤Constitution‍ and ⁣then engaged in "insurrection or rebellion"​ against‌...
  • A‌ group of Colorado ⁣voters,⁢ represented by​ the⁣ non-profit Citizens for Obligation and Ethics in Washington⁣ (CREW), argued that Trump was disqualified from the ballot as of​ his...
Original source: okaz.com.sa

Supreme ⁤Court Upholds Colorado Ruling‍ Disqualifying Donald Trump from ⁣Ballot

Table of Contents

  • Supreme ⁤Court Upholds Colorado Ruling‍ Disqualifying Donald Trump from ⁣Ballot
    • Background: Section 3 of the ⁤14th ⁣Amendment
    • The ⁣Colorado ⁢Case
    • The Supreme Court Ruling
    • Implications

the Supreme ⁣Court on‌ Monday, January 15, 2024,‌ ruled 6-3 that ​states can disqualify former President ⁤Donald Trump from appearing on the ballot ‌under Section 3 ⁤of the 14th Amendment, but reversed the Colorado ​Supreme court’s decision to‌ remove him specifically, citing a lack of congressional action clarifying ​the⁢ amendment’s⁤ application to presidential elections. The ⁤ruling leaves Trump’s eligibility ⁢for the ballot ⁣in other⁢ states largely unchanged, but sets a precedent for future challenges.

Background: Section 3 of the ⁤14th ⁣Amendment

Section ‍3 of the 14th Amendment, ratified ⁤in 1868, prevents ‍anyone‌ who ‌has​ taken ⁢an oath to support the ⁤Constitution‍ and ⁣then engaged in “insurrection or rebellion”​ against‌ it from holding‍ office. This clause was‌ originally intended​ to prevent former ⁣Confederate officials from regaining power after the Civil War. ‌ The ​central question in the case was whether this provision applies to the office of the President and, if⁤ so, ⁤what constitutes⁢ “insurrection or ⁤rebellion” and who ‌determines that.

The ⁣Colorado ⁢Case

A‌ group of Colorado ⁣voters,⁢ represented by​ the⁣ non-profit Citizens for Obligation and Ethics in Washington⁣ (CREW), argued that Trump was disqualified from the ballot as of​ his ⁢actions surrounding the January 6, 2021, attack ‌on the ‌U.S. Capitol. They argued⁣ that Trump incited the riot and thus engaged ⁤in insurrection. The⁣ Colorado ⁤District Court initially ⁤ruled that Trump did ⁤engage in insurrection, but persistent⁣ that the president wasn’t an “officer of the ​United States” as defined by Section ‌3, and ‍therefore wasn’t disqualified. ​ The Colorado Supreme ‍Court reversed ⁢that decision on⁣ December 19, 2023, ruling 4-3 that Trump‍ was indeed disqualified and removed him from ‌the state’s primary ballot. CBS News reported extensively on the Colorado court rulings.

The Supreme Court Ruling

Writing for⁤ the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas ‌stated that​ while Section 3 is valid‍ and​ can be used to disqualify individuals ⁢from holding office,‍ the ⁤Colorado Supreme Court overstepped ⁣its authority in ⁣removing Trump from the ballot. The​ Court found ‌that⁤ Congress must pass legislation clarifying ⁣how Section 3 applies to presidential elections before states can enforce it.

“In the‍ absence of such legislation, a State may not ⁢enforce Section 3 against⁢ a presidential candidate,” the Court wrote in its opinion.

The​ three dissenting justices – ​Sonia‌ Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, ⁢and Ketanji Brown Jackson – argued that ⁢the ⁢majority opinion undermined the 14th Amendment’s intent ⁤and ‍allowed someone who engaged in insurrection to potentially hold the highest office in the ‍land. Justice jackson, in her dissent, wrote that the majority’s decision “discounts the⁤ gravity of the events of January 6th and‍ the ⁤threat they posed⁢ to our democracy.” The New York Times provided detailed coverage of the dissenting opinions.

Implications

The ruling does not definitively resolve‍ Trump’s eligibility for⁤ the ⁣presidency. While the Colorado decision was overturned, other states could still attempt to⁤ disqualify him based‌ on Section 3, but would likely face‌ similar⁤ legal challenges. ​ The decision effectively‌ pushes the ⁣issue back to Congress ⁣to determine how Section 3 should be applied ​to future presidential elections. As of January 17, 2024, challenges to Trump’s ballot access are ongoing ⁤in several other states, including Illinois ‍and Maine. maine’s Secretary of State,Shenna Bellows,determined on December 28,2023 ⁢that Trump was disqualified,but that⁢ decision‌ is currently stayed ⁢pending appeal. ⁢

The case is Trump v. Anderson, No. 23-762, in the ‌Supreme Court of ‌the United States.

Share this:

  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X

Related

«إيحاءات, أسماء, الجمهور, بسبب, تواجه, جلال, خارجة», غضب

Search:

News Directory 3

ByoDirectory is a comprehensive directory of businesses and services across the United States. Find what you need, when you need it.

Quick Links

  • Disclaimer
  • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
  • Advertising Policy
  • Contact Us
  • Cookie Policy
  • Editorial Guidelines
  • Privacy Policy

Browse by State

  • Alabama
  • Alaska
  • Arizona
  • Arkansas
  • California
  • Colorado

Connect With Us

© 2026 News Directory 3. All rights reserved.

Privacy Policy Terms of Service