39 lines
4.5 KiB
HTML
39 lines
4.5 KiB
HTML
<DIV class="page" id="readability-page-1">
|
||
<div>
|
||
<main role="main" id="content">
|
||
<article data-test-id="NewArticle" id="new-article-template">
|
||
<div data-test-id="standard-article-template">
|
||
<section>
|
||
<h2> Some conservative legal scholars think so—but the idea is a long shot </h2>
|
||
</section>
|
||
<section>
|
||
<figure>
|
||
<img alt="Donald Trump speaks on the stage at South Dakota Republican party rally in Rapid City" fetchpriority="high" width="1280" height="720" decoding="async" data-nimg="1" sizes="(min-width: 960px) 700px, 95vw" srcset="https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=360,quality=80,format=auto/content-assets/images/20230923_BLP505.jpg 360w, https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=384,quality=80,format=auto/content-assets/images/20230923_BLP505.jpg 384w, https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=480,quality=80,format=auto/content-assets/images/20230923_BLP505.jpg 480w, https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=600,quality=80,format=auto/content-assets/images/20230923_BLP505.jpg 600w, https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=834,quality=80,format=auto/content-assets/images/20230923_BLP505.jpg 834w, https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=960,quality=80,format=auto/content-assets/images/20230923_BLP505.jpg 960w, https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1096,quality=80,format=auto/content-assets/images/20230923_BLP505.jpg 1096w, https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1280,quality=80,format=auto/content-assets/images/20230923_BLP505.jpg 1280w, https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1424,quality=80,format=auto/content-assets/images/20230923_BLP505.jpg 1424w" src="https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1424,quality=80,format=auto/content-assets/images/20230923_BLP505.jpg">
|
||
<figcaption>
|
||
<span>image: Reuters</span>
|
||
</figcaption>
|
||
</figure>
|
||
</section>
|
||
<div>
|
||
<div data-body-id="cp2">
|
||
<p data-component="paragraph">
|
||
<span data-caps="initial">D</span><small>ONALD TRUMP’S</small> campaign for re-election is dogged with <a href="https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2022/10/05/how-much-legal-jeopardy-is-donald-trump-in">legal woes</a>. The former president faces the prospect of <a href="https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2023/09/06/a-primer-on-trumps-criminal-trials">four criminal trials</a> on felony charges, which will overlap with the Republican primary season and the general-election campaign. But another type of legal trouble could further complicate his return to the White House.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-component="paragraph"> America’s constitution—which Mr Trump swore to uphold on January 20th 2017—includes a provision barring people who have taken such an oath from holding federal office if they have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the country or “given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof”. This language, found in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, was ratified after the civil war to prevent former Confederate rebels from having a hand in running the country they had tried to saw in half. The disqualification clause has seen something of a renaissance. A year ago, Couy Griffin, then a county commissioner in New Mexico, was removed from office by a state judge for engaging in insurrection at the Capitol on January 6th. But could this constitutional provision really thwart Mr Trump’s quest for a second presidential term? </p>
|
||
</div>
|
||
<div>
|
||
<p><span>The Economist today</span>
|
||
</p>
|
||
<h2> Handpicked stories, in your inbox </h2>
|
||
<p> A daily newsletter with the best of our journalism </p>
|
||
<div>
|
||
<p><label for="marketing-preferences">Yes, I agree to receive exclusive content, offers and updates to products and services from The Economist Group. I can change these preferences at any time.</label>
|
||
</p>
|
||
</div>
|
||
</div>
|
||
</div>
|
||
</div>
|
||
</article>
|
||
</main>
|
||
</div>
|
||
</DIV> |