The case, known as Trump v. Anderson, will focus on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment and its interpretation by various conservative justices including Antonin Scalia.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether former President Donald Trump can run for president again in 2024.
The ongoing debate over whether former President Donald Trump can run for president again in 2024 has taken a new turn with the Supreme Court set to hear arguments on this issue. The case, known as Trump v. Anderson, will focus on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment and its interpretation by various conservative justices including Antonin Scalia.
Trump claims presidents are not officers of the United States
The Scalia concurrence is one instance in which anti-Trump advocates are highlighting past statements from the court's conservatives to counter Trump's arguments.
Accuracy
Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump was ineligible to run for president over his role in the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S Capitol
Could Donald Trump be constitutionally barred from becoming president of the United States a second time after the unprecedented and tragic events of Jan. 6, 2021?
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in that it presents the argument of Trump's critics as if they are using Scalia's opinion to support their case when in fact they are using his opinion to attack him. The author also uses emotional language such as 'fierce pushback from other conservatives', which is not relevant to the topic at hand and could be seen as an attempt to sway public opinion rather than present a fair analysis of the issue.
The forces opposing Trump are citing a 2014 concurring opinion from Scalia, a hero of the conservative legal movement who died in 2016, as evidence that the 14th Amendment's 'insurrectionist ban' applies to former presidents not just rank-and-file federal officials.
The interpretation of Scalia has drawn fierce pushback from other conservatives.
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains an informal fallacy known as 'appeals to authority'. The author cites the late Justice Antonin Scalia and several of the court's current conservatives as evidence that the 14th Amendment's insurrectionist ban applies to former presidents. However, this is not a definitive statement from Scalia or any other justice on this matter.
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards Trump's critics and their argument that the late Justice Antonin Scalia can sway the Supreme Court in a 14th Amendment fight. The author cites several examples of conservative legal principles being invoked to support this argument, including a concurring opinion from Scalia and other court conservatives. However, these same conservatives are also cited as opposing Trump's arguments on the matter.
Former conservative appellate judge J. Michael Luttig, who has become an outspoken Trump critic, also cited Scalia in a brief to the court this week.
The forces opposing Trump are citing a 2014 concurring opinion from Scalia as evidence that the 14th Amendment’s insurrectionist ban applies to former presidents not just rank-and-file federal officials.
The interpretation of Scalia has drawn fierce pushback from other conservatives.
Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold urged the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm a decision by Colorado's high court to remove Donald Trump from the ballot.
The clause states that anyone who took an oath to uphold the US Constitution but engaged in insurrection or rebellion against it should be barred from holding state or federal office.
Colorado and Maine are currently the only states that have disqualified Trump from their state presidential primary ballots.
Accuracy
The Scalia concurrence is one instance in which anti-Trump advocates are highlighting past statements from the court's conservatives to counter Trump's arguments.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Trump was found ineligible to run for president due to his role in the January 6th insurrection at the US Capitol. However, this claim is false as Trump has not been convicted of any crimes related to the insurrection and there is no evidence linking him directly to it.
The author claims that Trump was found ineligible to run for president due to his role in the January 6th insurrection at the US Capitol. However, this claim is false as Trump has not been convicted of any crimes related to the insurrection and there is no evidence linking him directly to it.
The author states that Colorado's Election Code allows for candidates who are found ineligible by state courts to be removed from ballots. This statement implies that Trump was found ineligible, but as previously mentioned, this claim is false.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy when it states that Jena Griswold's opinion is valid because she is the secretary of state. Additionally, there are examples of inflammatory rhetoric used by Griswold such as calling Trump's actions 'insurrection'. The author also uses a dichotomous depiction when stating that Colorado should not be forced to include a candidate found by its courts to have violated his oath. There is no evidence presented in the article of any other states taking similar action, so this statement can be seen as an appeal to authority fallacy.
Jena Griswold's opinion on Trump being ineligible for the presidency is valid because she is the secretary of state.
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is Marita Vlachou and she has a clear political bias. She uses language that dehumanizes Trump by referring to him as an insurrectionist who violated his oath to support the Constitution. The author also quotes Jena Griswold, Colorado's secretary of state, who argues against allowing Trump on the ballot based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and cites her own state court procedure as standard for resolving election disputes. This suggests that Vlachou is in agreement with Griswold's position and supports disqualifying Trump from running for president.
The author refers to Donald Trump as an insurrectionist who violated his oath to support the Constitution.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Marita Vlachou has a financial tie to Donald Trump as she is the Secretary of State for Colorado and he was on the ballot in her state. She also has personal relationships with Jena Griswold who is involved in election lawsuits against Colorado.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of Donald Trump being kept on the ballot in Colorado. The article discusses Jena Griswold's decision to not certify Trump for the ballot and how it is consistent with her duty as Secretary of State under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
The author mentions Donald Trump by name multiple times throughout the article, including in the title. The author also discusses Jena Griswold's decision to not certify Trump for the ballot and how it is consistent with her duty as Secretary of State under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Could Donald Trump be constitutionally barred from becoming president of the United States a second time after the unprecedented and tragic events of Jan. 6, 2021?
The answer will depend on the meaning of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Section 3 states that no person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office under the United States or under any state who has previously taken an oath to support the Constitution and engaged in insurrection against it.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it presents the question of whether Donald Trump can be constitutionally barred from being president again as a straightforward one when in fact there are multiple issues at play that need to be considered. The author does not provide any clear or concise reasoning for why these issues should be considered together and how they relate to each other.
The article presents the question of whether Donald Trump can be constitutionally barred from being president again as a straightforward one when in fact there are multiple issues at play that need to be considered. The author does not provide any clear or concise reasoning for why these issues should be considered together and how they relate to each other.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the U.S. Supreme Court and stating that they will hear arguments on this question in Trump v. Anderson without providing any context or evidence for their decision-making process.
]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,
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is James C. Phillips and he has a history of dog-whistling to supporters of extremist far-right ideologies and wild conspiracy theories like QAnon.
][
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
James C. Phillips has a conflict of interest on the topic of Donald Trump being constitutionally barred from becoming president again as he is an employee of Deseret News which is owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon church) and it's leader, Russell Nelson, who made insurrectionist statements.
James C. Phillips works for Deseret News which is owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon church)
Russell Nelson, the leader of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon church), made insurrectionist statements
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
James C. Phillips has a conflict of interest on the topic of Donald Trump being constitutionally barred from becoming president again as he is an author for Deseret News which published an article that supports insurrectionist statements.
