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.

  • CosmicSploogeDrizzle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    9 months ago

    You can look up the minutes from the exact meeting where they discuss the wording of the amendment. There is an official record of these discussions. This exact question was asked and it was confirmed that the President is included. I don’t have a link atm, but someone posted it in another thread.

    • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      During the debate over the amendment, Sen. Reverdy Johnson of Maryland was troubled by the omission. Did that mean it didn’t apply to President Johnson?

      Sen. Justin Morrill of Vermont assured Sen. Johnson that the Reconstruction Committee had no such intention. “Let me call the Senator’s attention to the words ‘or hold any office, civil or military under the United States’, ” Morrill said.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        Comforting.

        However, the cynic in me would point out that referring someone to previous part of the text doesn’t explicitly include the President in the latter part. Someone who swore an oath as an officer could not become President, but if the President is not considered an officer and that person was never an officer in any other capacity, they could still slip through the cracks.

        That’s quite clearly the wrong interpretation, and I feel dirty for suggesting it, but there is still a small amount of uncertainty in the letter of it all.

        • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          I think it’s crystal clear, but I too have watched even lower courts twist themselves in circles to skirt justice for trump. I’m sure there will be a delay at least until after he’s won/lost. Which is just disgusting.