It took months before the first mention of Section 3 in a public document. Free Speech For People, a Massachusetts-based liberal nonprofit, sent letters to top election officials in all 50 states in June 2021, warning them not to place Trump on the ballot should he run again in 2024 because he had violated the provision.

None of them took action, part of a general silence in reaction to the group’s arguments.

“People were just treating it as something that was not serious,” recalled John Bonifaz, the group’s co-founder.

By January 2022, the group decided to test Section 3 in court.

Looking for a lower-level defendant, Sherman’s organization zeroed in on Couy Griffin. The subject of one of the earliest Jan. 6 prosecutions, Griffin already has a rich legal record. He was was recorded in a restricted area of the U.S. Capitol as head of a group called Cowboys for Trump. Griffin was convicted of illegally entering the Capitol, but acquitted of engaging in disorderly conduct.

He still served as a commissioner in a rural New Mexico county, which kept CREW’s attention on him. On Sept. 6, 2022, a New Mexico judge ordered Griffin removed from his position. It was the first time in more than 100 years an official had been removed under Section 3. Griffin has appealed to the Supreme Court.

  • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    The other issue is that the constitution does not put the exact words “support the constitution” in the presidential oath of office, and Trump took no other oath. He’s argued the absence of those words is conspicuous, as all others - including the VP - are obligated to say them.

    I think SCOTUS is hoping he chokes on a pork chop before March and doesn’t have to make a ruling.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        He swore to “preserve, protect, and defend the constitution.” Article II Section 1 Clause 8 specifies the exact oath the President Elect must take, and that oath does not include the word “support”.

        It’s a bullshit argument which is defeated by Article VI Clause 3, so long as the President is considered an “executive officer”. But, his lawyers are using the different wording in Article II and Article VI to support their contention that the presidency is not an executive office.

        • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Going after the word “support” is semantic at best and any lawyer would be able to blow up that argument in a heartbeat.