minute read
ADVERTISEMENT
President Donald Trump will remain on the ballot in New Hampshire despite efforts to have him removed.
On Tuesday, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld a ruling made by the US District Court for the District of New Hampshire rejecting an attempt to remove Donald Trump from the ballot in the state.
The original challenege was brought by little-known Republican presidential candidate John Anthony Castro, who claimed the former commander in chief and current GOP frontrunner had violated the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment, a Civil War-era clause that prevents anyone "engaged in an insurrection or rebellion" against the Constitution from holding political office.
Following the ruling, lawyer and RNC member Harmeet Dhillon congratulated her colleagues for protecting Trump's ability to run.
"SO MUCH WINNING!!!" she wrote. "We defeated a challenge to [Trump]'s being on the ballot in New Hampshire, and the First Circuit court of appeals agreed w/trial court and rejected standing."
In their ruling, Judges David Barron, Gustavo Gelpi, and Lara Montecalvo agreed with the lower court's findings that Castro had failed to prove his case regarding a supposed violation of the 14th Amendment, and claims that he would suffer if Trump remains on the ballot.
"Castro could not satisfy the causation and redressability elements of standing," they wrote, 'because 'Trump's absence from the primary ballot would not affect the number of votes or contributions Castro would receive' ... thus we have no reason to address those other components of standing in this case."
In his ruling, US District Judge Joseph Laplante had argued that, "the vast weight of authority has held that the Constitution commits to Congress and the electors the responsibility of determining matters of presidential candidates' qualifications," and that, "Castro provides no reason to deviate from this consistent authority."
"It appears to the court that Castro’s claim —which challenges Trump's eligibility as a presidential candidate under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment — raises a nonjusticiable political question," he added. "As such, even if Castro did have standing to assert his claim, the court would lack jurisdiction to hear it under the political question doctrine."
Also named as a defendent in the suit was NH Secretary of State David Scanlan, who stood by Trump and argued that Castro's claims were nonsense because the 14th Amendment does not pertain to those simply running for office.
The former president is currently leading the GOP field in the state by 27 points.
On Tuesday, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld a ruling made by the US District Court for the District of New Hampshire rejecting an attempt to remove Donald Trump from the ballot in the state.
The original challenege was brought by little-known Republican presidential candidate John Anthony Castro, who claimed the former commander in chief and current GOP frontrunner had violated the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment, a Civil War-era clause that prevents anyone "engaged in an insurrection or rebellion" against the Constitution from holding political office.
Following the ruling, lawyer and RNC member Harmeet Dhillon congratulated her colleagues for protecting Trump's ability to run.
"SO MUCH WINNING!!!" she wrote. "We defeated a challenge to [Trump]'s being on the ballot in New Hampshire, and the First Circuit court of appeals agreed w/trial court and rejected standing."
In their ruling, Judges David Barron, Gustavo Gelpi, and Lara Montecalvo agreed with the lower court's findings that Castro had failed to prove his case regarding a supposed violation of the 14th Amendment, and claims that he would suffer if Trump remains on the ballot.
"Castro could not satisfy the causation and redressability elements of standing," they wrote, 'because 'Trump's absence from the primary ballot would not affect the number of votes or contributions Castro would receive' ... thus we have no reason to address those other components of standing in this case."
In his ruling, US District Judge Joseph Laplante had argued that, "the vast weight of authority has held that the Constitution commits to Congress and the electors the responsibility of determining matters of presidential candidates' qualifications," and that, "Castro provides no reason to deviate from this consistent authority."
"It appears to the court that Castro’s claim —which challenges Trump's eligibility as a presidential candidate under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment — raises a nonjusticiable political question," he added. "As such, even if Castro did have standing to assert his claim, the court would lack jurisdiction to hear it under the political question doctrine."
Also named as a defendent in the suit was NH Secretary of State David Scanlan, who stood by Trump and argued that Castro's claims were nonsense because the 14th Amendment does not pertain to those simply running for office.
The former president is currently leading the GOP field in the state by 27 points.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign in to comment
Powered by StructureCMS™ Comments
Join and support independent free thinkers!
We’re independent and can’t be cancelled. The establishment media is increasingly dedicated to divisive cancel culture, corporate wokeism, and political correctness, all while covering up corruption from the corridors of power. The need for fact-based journalism and thoughtful analysis has never been greater. When you support The Post Millennial, you support freedom of the press at a time when it's under direct attack. Join the ranks of independent, free thinkers by supporting us today for as little as $1.
Remind me next month
To find out what personal data we collect and how we use it, please visit our Privacy Policy
Comments