Section 3 of the 14th Amendment lays out circumstances under which someone can be disqualified from holding public office.
The section states that no person who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States shall hold any office of trust or profit under its authority.
The very long sentence that will decide if Trump can be kept off 2024 ballots is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which contains one very long sentence laying out the circumstances under which someone can be disqualified from holding public office. This section states that no person who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States shall hold any office of trust or profit under its authority.
The 14th Amendment refers to insurrection or rebellion
Jan. 6 was an insurrection according to the trial court judge who heard evidence in the Colorado case
Higher courts are usually highly deferential to fact-finding by district court judges
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author uses a loaded phrase 'insurrection' which has political connotations and can be interpreted differently by different people. The author also quotes Trump's lawyers arguing that he did not engage in insurrection despite evidence to the contrary.
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author uses a loaded phrase 'insurrection' which has political connotations and can be interpreted differently by different people. The author also quotes Trump's lawyers arguing that he did not engage in insurrection despite evidence to the contrary.
Trump’s attorneys argue that, even if Jan. 6 did amount to an insurrection, the then-president didn’t engage in it.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The first is an appeal to authority when the author cites a trial court judge who concluded that Jan. 6 events amounted to insurrection without providing any evidence or reasoning for their conclusion.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains several examples of bias. The author uses loaded language such as 'insurrection' and 'rebellion', which could be seen as inflammatory and biased towards one side. Additionally, the author quotes Trump's lawyers arguing that he did not engage in insurrection, despite evidence to the contrary. This is a clear example of bias towards Trump and his supporters.
Evidence gathered by the House Jan. 6 committee indicated that Trump knew some of those who came to his speech had firearms.
Higher courts are usually highly deferential to that sort of fact-finding.
The 14th Amendment refers to “insurrection or rebellion,”
Trump’s lawyers argue that, even if Jan. 6 did amount to an insurrection, the then-president didn’t engage in it.
Norma Anderson is a 91-year-old Colorado Republican who has been involved in politics for over 50 years.
Anderson is currently leading a lawsuit seeking to disqualify Donald Trump from office, which revolves around Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Accuracy
Norma Anderson is a Colorado Republican who has been involved in politics for over 50 years.
Anderson led the lawsuit seeking to disqualify Donald Trump from office and it revolves around Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author presents Norma Anderson as a heroic figure leading the charge against Trump when in reality she was simply one of many plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging his eligibility to run for president. Secondly, the author misrepresents Anderson's political views by stating that she is an old-fashioned Republican who believes in strong defense and supporting business, when her biography states that she focused on education, transportation and health care while serving in the Colorado statehouse. Lastly, the article fails to disclose any sources or provide evidence for its claims.
The author misrepresents Anderson's political views by stating that she is an old-fashioned Republican who believes in strong defense and supporting business, when her biography states that she focused on education, transportation and health care while serving in the Colorado statehouse.
The author presents Norma Anderson as a heroic figure leading the charge against Trump when in reality she was simply one of many plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging his eligibility to run for president.
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in December that Trump is disqualified from holding public office due to the January 6th insurrection. However, this ruling was later overturned by a lower court and is currently being appealed to the US Supreme Court. Additionally, Anderson's statement about not realizing she would go down in history as 'Anderson versus Trump' is an example of inflammatory rhetoric. The author also uses dichotomous depiction when describing Colorado voters, stating that they voted for all but one Republican presidential nominee from 1968 through 2004 and then started voting for Democrats since Obama won the state in 2008.
The author states that Trump is disqualified from holding public office due to the January 6th insurrection, but this ruling was later overturned by a lower court and is currently being appealed. This is an example of inflammatory rhetoric.
Bias
(85%)
The author has a clear political bias towards the Republican party and is hostile to Trump. The article portrays Anderson as an old-fashioned Republican who believes in strong defense, supporting business, helping those who don't know how to help themselves and less government. This ideology aligns with the values of the GOP which could be seen as a form of bias.
Anderson said she has received a lot of support from friends and family, except for one or two holdouts who are still die-hard Trump supporters.
The author describes Anderson as an old-fashioned Republican
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
Marshall Cohen has a conflict of interest on the topic of Norma Anderson as he is leading a challenge against Trump's candidacy for governor in Colorado. He also has ties to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) which may have an agenda related to this issue.
Marshall Cohen reports on the 14th Amendment challenge led by Norma Anderson against Trump's candidacy for governor in Colorado. He also mentions his own involvement with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) which may have an agenda related to this issue.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
Marshall Cohen has a conflict of interest on the topic of Norma Anderson as he is leading a challenge against Trump's candidacy for president. He also has ties to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) which may have an agenda related to this issue.
He is affiliated with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)
Marshall Cohen leads a 14th Amendment challenge against Trump
The court will decide whether Trump is eligible to be president again or whether his role in the Jan. 6, 2021 attack bars him from office.
Republicans have rallied behind the former president, arguing that he should not be disqualified for a whole litany of reasons or even more bluntly that Trump bears no responsibility for what happened three years ago.
Not a single sitting Democratic member of Congress, governor, state attorney general or secretary of state filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court to tell the court where they stand advocating for Trump to be removed.
Deception
(60%)
The article does not explicitly state that Trump is responsible for the insurrection but implies it through phrases like 'Trump's role in the Jan. 6 attack'. The author also uses emotional manipulation by stating that Democrats are avoiding talking about this issue to avoid politicizing it, which is an opinion and not a fact.
Democrats’ attempts to stay out of the 14th Amendment issue may be intended to avoid the appearance that they’re politicizing the law and the courts.
Democrats don’t really want to talk about the case that could throw Donald Trump off the ballot
Republicans have rallied behind the former president, arguing that he should not be disqualified for a whole litany of reasons or even more bluntly that Trump bears no responsibility for what happened three years ago.
Fallacies
(80%)
The article contains an example of a false dilemma fallacy. The author presents the situation as if there are only two options: either Trump is eligible to be president again or he is not. However, this ignores other possibilities and oversimplifies a complex legal issue.
>Rep. Matt Gaetz announced that 65 House Republicans are introducing legislation to say that <u>former President Donald J. Trump did not engage in insurrection or rebellion against the United States.</u>
Bias
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
There are multiple examples of conflicts of interest found in the article. The author has a personal relationship with Donald Trump and is likely to report on him favorably.
The US Supreme Court will decide on Thursday whether Donald Trump is eligible to run for president.
Two states, Colorado and Maine, have declared Mr Trump ineligible from running as a presidential candidate because of his actions around the Capitol riot.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars those who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the country from holding federal office.
Accuracy
The lengthy ruling said Mr Trump's actions in the build-up to 6 January constituted insurrection and his lawyers had argued that he should not be disqualified because he did not bear responsibility for the riot.
Higher courts are usually highly deferential to fact-finding by district court judges.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that Mr Trump faces legal challenges heading into the 2024 presidential race when he has not announced his candidacy yet. Secondly, it implies that Mr Trump's actions around the Capitol riot are a reason for him to be disqualified from running as a presidential candidate when Section 3 of the 14th Amendment only bars those who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the country from holding federal office. Thirdly, it states that Mr Trump's actions in the build-up to January 6th constituted insurrection which is not true as he was acquitted on all charges related to this incident.
The article states that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment only bars those who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the country from holding federal office. However, this is not true as it also applies to state offices which Mr Trump has held and could be disqualified for if found guilty.
The article implies that Mr Trump faces legal challenges heading into the 2024 presidential race when he has not announced his candidacy yet. This statement is deceptive because it creates a false sense of urgency and suggests that Mr Trump's actions are already being judged.
The article implies that Mr Trump's actions in the build-up to January 6th constituted insurrection which is not true as he was acquitted on all charges related to this incident.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The first is an appeal to authority when it states that the Colorado Supreme Court found clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection. This statement implies that the court's ruling is objective and authoritative, but it fails to provide any evidence or reasoning for this conclusion. Additionally, the article uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing Mr Trump's actions as a
The appeal to authority fallacy in 'Why the Supreme Court is deciding if Donald Trump can be on Colorado's primary ballot'
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards the former president Donald Trump. The author uses language that dehumanizes and demonizes Mr. Trump by calling him a 'former' president instead of using his full name or title as President of the United States.
][
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of Donald Trump as they are reporting for Reuters which is owned by Thomson Reuters. The company has financial ties to companies that have business interests with President Trump.
The words 'chaos and bedlam' are now synonymous with Jan. 6, 2021.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment contains one very long sentence laying out the circumstances under which someone can be disqualified from holding public office.
Accuracy
Donald Trump's eligibility to return to the White House hinges on one paragraph in the U.S. Constitution that is far from a model of clarity.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment contains one very long sentence laying out the circumstances under which someone can be disqualified from holding public office, but it raises many tough questions that have gone largely unanswered since its enactment more than 150 years ago.
Deception
(70%)
The article does not contain any direct lies or deception. However it is sensationalized and contains emotional manipulation in the title 'The very long sentence that will decide if Trump can be kept off 2024 ballots'. The author also engages in selective reporting by only mentioning Colorado's Supreme Court decision to remove trump from the primary ballot but not mentioning any other states decisions. There is no evidence of science or health articles implying facts without linking to peer-reviewed studies, and there are no pre-print studies referenced.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The first is an appeal to authority when it states that the former president's lawyers argue that if the U.S. Supreme Court allows any state to kick Trump off the 2024 ballot for his role in attempting to block the peaceful transfer of power, then chaos and bedlam will ensue.
The words “chaos and bedlam” are now synonymous with Jan. 6, 2021.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains a statement that the former president's lawyers argue will ensue if the U.S. Supreme Court allows any state to kick him off the 2024 ballot for his role in attempting to block the peaceful transfer of power.
]No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States,
