Connect with us

Foreign

JUST IN: US Supreme Court restores Trump to ballot

Published

on

…reject state attempts to ban him over Capitol attack

The Supreme Court on Monday unanimously restored Donald Trump to 2024 presidential primary ballots, rejecting state attempts to ban the Republican former president over the Capitol riot.

The justices ruled a day before the Super Tuesday primaries that states cannot invoke a post-Civil War constitutional provision to keep presidential candidates from appearing on ballots. That power resides with Congress, the court wrote in an unsigned opinion.

Trump posted on his social media network shortly after the decision was released: “BIG WIN FOR AMERICA!!!”

Advertisement

The outcome ends efforts in Colorado, Illinois, Maine and elsewhere to kick Trump, the front-runner for his party’s nomination, off the ballot because of his attempts to undo his loss in the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden, culminating in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold expressed disappointment in the court’s decision as she acknowledged that “Donald Trump is an eligible candidate on Colorado’s 2024 Presidential Primary.”

Trump’s case was the first at the Supreme Court dealing with a provision of the 14th Amendment that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again.

Colorado’s Supreme Court, in a first-of-its-kind ruling, had decided that the provision, Section 3, could be applied to Trump, who that court found incited the Capitol attack. No court before had applied Section 3 to a presidential candidate.

Advertisement

Donald Trump is facing four criminal indictments, and a civil lawsuit.

The justices sidestepped the politically fraught issue of insurrection in their opinions Monday.

The court held that states may bar candidates from state office. “But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency,” the court wrote.

While all nine justices agreed that Trump should be on the ballot, there was sharp disagreement from the three liberal members of the court and a milder disagreement from conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett that their colleagues went too far in determining what Congress must do to disqualify someone from federal office.

Advertisement

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson said they agreed that allowing the Colorado decision to stand could create a “chaotic state by state patchwork” but said they disagreed with the majority’s finding a disqualification for insurrection can only happen when Congress enacts legislation. “Today, the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oathbreaking insurrectionist from becoming President,” the three justices wrote in a joint opinion.

It’s unclear whether the ruling leaves open the possibility that Congress could refuse to certify the election of Trump or any other presidential candidate it sees as having violated Section 3.

Derek Muller, a law professor at Notre Dame University, said “it seems no,” noting that the liberals complained that the majority ruling forecloses any other ways for Congress to enforce the provision. Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California-Los Angeles, wrote that it’s frustratingly unclear what the bounds might be on Congress.

Hasen was among those urging the court to settle the issue so there wasn’t the risk of Congress rejecting Trump under Section 3 when it counts electoral votes on Jan. 6, 2025.

Advertisement

“We may well have a nasty, nasty post-election period in which Congress tries to disqualify Trump but the Supreme Court says Congress exceeded its powers,” he wrote.

Both sides had requested fast work by the court, which heard arguments less than a month ago, on Feb. 8. The justices seemed poised then to rule in Trump’s favor.

Trump had been kicked off the ballots in Colorado, Maine and Illinois, but all three rulings were on hold awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision.

The case is the court’s most direct involvement in a presidential election since Bush v. Gore, a decision delivered a quarter-century ago that effectively handed the 2000 election to Republican George W. Bush. And it’s just one of several cases involving Trump directly or that could affect his chances of becoming president again, including a case scheduled for arguments in late April about whether he can be criminally prosecuted on election interference charges, including his role in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack. The timing of the high court’s intervention has raised questions about whether Trump will be tried before the November election.

Advertisement

The arguments in February were the first time the high court had heard a case involving Section 3. The two-sentence provision, intended to keep some Confederates from holding office again, says that those who violate oaths to support the Constitution are barred from various positions including congressional offices or serving as presidential electors. But it does not specifically mention the presidency.

Conservative and liberal justices questioned the case against Trump. Their main concern was whether Congress must act before states can invoke the 14th Amendment. There also were questions about whether the president is covered by the provision.

The lawyers for Republican and independent voters who sued to remove Trump’s name from the Colorado ballot had argued that there is ample evidence that the events of Jan. 6 constituted an insurrection and that it was incited by Trump, who had exhorted a crowd of his supporters at a rally outside the White House to “fight like hell.” They said it would be absurd to apply Section 3 to everything but the presidency or that Trump is somehow exempt. And the provision needs no enabling legislation, they argued.

Trump’s lawyers mounted several arguments for why the amendment can’t be used to keep him off the ballot. They contended the Jan. 6 riot wasn’t an insurrection and, even if it was, Trump did not go to the Capitol or join the rioters. The wording of the amendment also excludes the presidency and candidates running for president, they said. Even if all those arguments failed, they said, Congress must pass legislation to reinvigorate Section 3.

Advertisement

The case was decided by a court that includes three justices appointed by Trump when he was president. They have considered many Trump-related cases in recent years, declining to embrace his bogus claims of fraud in the 2020 election and refusing to shield tax records from Congress and prosecutors in New York.

The 5-4 decision in Bush v. Gore case more than 23 years ago was the last time the court was so deeply involved in presidential politics. Justice Clarence Thomas is the only member of the court who was on the bench then.

Thomas has ignored calls by some Democratic lawmakers to step aside from the Trump case because his wife, Ginni, supported Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election results and attended the rally that preceded the storming of the Capitol by Trump supporters.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Foreign

DR Congo soldiers, rebels’ clash death toll hits over 900

Published

on

More than 900 people have been killed in the past two weeks amid intense fighting between M23 rebels and government forces in Goma, a city in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo.

According to a statement released late Monday by the World Health Organization, approximately 2,880 injured individuals have been admitted to various health facilities in Goma since January 26.

Last week, the M23 armed group, backed by Rwandan troops, seized Goma’s airport as its fighters swept through the city, the regional capital of North Kivu, forcing tens of thousands to flee their homes.

The rebels have intensified attacks in eastern DRC, claiming control over Goma and establishing checkpoints, severely restricting humanitarian access.

Advertisement

With Goma under their control, the rebels pushed towards Bukavu, another major city in eastern DRC. Previously, the group had declared its intention to advance across the country toward the national capital, Kinshasa. However, in a recent statement, M23 rebels denied plans to capture Bukavu.

“It must be made clear that we have no intention of capturing Bukavu or other areas. However, we reiterate our commitment to protecting and defending the civilian population and our positions,” M23 spokesman Lawrence Kanyuka stated.

Meanwhile, Rwanda-backed forces in eastern DRC announced on Tuesday that they would pause their advance for humanitarian reasons.

The Alliance Fleuve Congo rebel coalition declared a unilateral ceasefire starting Tuesday, a decision made in response to growing humanitarian concerns.

Advertisement

The rebels’ statement, posted on X (formerly Twitter), read:

“The Alliance Fleuve Congo (AFC/M23) informs the public that, in response to the humanitarian crisis caused by the regime in Kinshasa, it declares a ceasefire starting February 4, 2025, for humanitarian reasons.”

Despite the ceasefire declaration, there has been no immediate response from the DRC government in Kinshasa, and it remains unclear whether the Congolese military will honor the truce. Over the past three years, multiple ceasefires and truces have been declared, only to be systematically broken.

Before the ceasefire announcement, the International Committee of the Red Cross reported treating over 600 wounded individuals since the start of January, nearly half of whom were civilians, including women and children.

Advertisement

Meanwhile, the WHO has warned of a heightened risk of disease outbreaks, including mpox, cholera, and measles, as displaced populations struggle to access medical care.

Continue Reading

Foreign

Trump Withdraws U.S. From UN Human Rights Council, Prohibits Funding For UNRWA

Published

on

President Donald Trump announced Tuesday that the United States will withdraw from the top U.N. human rights body and will not resume funding for the U.N. agency helping Palestinian refugees.

The U.S. left the Geneva-based Human Rights Council last year, and it stopped funding the agency assisting Palestinian refugees, known as UNRWA, after Israel accused it of harboring Hamas militants who participated in the surprise Oct. 7, 2023, attacks in southern Israel, which UNRWA denies.

Trump’s announcement came on the day he met with visiting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose country has long accused both the rights body and UNRWA of bias against Israel and antisemitism.

Trump’s executive orders also call for a review of American involvement in the Paris-based U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, known as UNESCO, and a review of U.S. funding for the United Nations in light of “the wild disparities in levels of funding among different countries.”

Advertisement

The United States, with the world’s largest economy, pays 22% of the U.N.’s regular operating budget, with China the second-largest contributor.

“I’ve always felt that the U.N. has tremendous potential,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “It’s not living up to that potential right now. … They’ve got to get their act together.”

He said the U.N. needs “to be fair to countries that deserve fairness,” adding that there are some countries, which he didn’t name, that are “outliers, that are very bad and they’re being almost preferred.”

Before Trump’s announcement, U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric reiterated the Human Rights Council’s importance and UNRWA’s work in delivering “critical services to Palestinians.”

Advertisement

Trump also pulled the U.S. out of the Human Rights Council in June 2018. His ambassador to the U.N. at the time, Nikki Haley, accused the council of “chronic bias against Israel” and pointed to what she said were human rights abusers among its members.

President Joe Biden renewed support for the Human Rights Council, and the U.S. won a seat on the 47-nation body in October 2021. But the Biden administration announced in late September that the United States would not seek a second consecutive term.

Trump’s order on Tuesday has little concrete effect because the United States is already not a council member, said council spokesperson Pascal Sim. But like all other U.N. member countries, the U.S. automatically has informal observer status and will still have a seat in the council’s ornate round chamber at the U.N. complex in Geneva.

UNRWA was established by the U.N. General Assembly in 1949 to provide assistance for Palestinians who fled or were expelled from their homes before and during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war that followed Israel’s establishment, as well as for their descendants. It provides aid, education, health care and other services to some 2.5 million Palestinians in Gaza, the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, as well as 3 million more in Syria, Jordan and Lebanon.

Advertisement

Before the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks, UNRWA ran schools for Gaza’s 650,000 children as well as health facilities, and helped deliver humanitarian aid. It has continued to provide health care and been key to the delivery of food and other aid to Palestinians during the war.

The first Trump administration suspended funding to UNRWA in 2018, but Biden restored it. The U.S. had been the biggest donor to the agency, providing it with $343 million in 2022 and $422 million in 2023.

For years, Israel has accused UNRWA of anti-Israeli bias in its education materials, which the agency denies.

Israel alleged that 19 of UNRWA’s 13,000 staff in Gaza participated in the Hamas attacks. They were terminated pending a U.N. investigation, which found nine may have been involved.

Advertisement

In response, 18 governments froze funding to the agency, but all have since restored support except the United States. Legislation ratifying the U.S. decision halted any American funding to UNRWA until March 2025, and Trump’s action Tuesday means it will not be restored.

Continue Reading

Foreign

South Africa gives Taiwan deadline to leave Pretoria

Published

on

The South African government has given Taiwan March deadline to relocate the island’s de facto embassy outside of the capital city Pretoria.

The Taiwanese Foreign Ministry said this, blaming Chinese pressure for the move.

South Africa severed official diplomatic ties with Taiwan in 1997 and only maintains formal and very close relations with China, which views the democratically governed island as Chinese territory with no right to the trappings of a state.

In a statement, Taiwan’s Foreign Ministry said South Africa’s government had sent a letter in January demanding the de facto Taiwanese embassy leave Pretoria before the end of March and “even be renamed as a trade office”.

Advertisement

China’s foreign ministry said South Africa was a “good friend and partner” of China, and the country was doing exactly what it should when it comes to upholding the “one China principle” which states Taiwan is part of China.

“Taiwan independence does not enjoy popular support, and will fail,” the ministry said in a statement to Reuters.

South Africa made a request last year for what is called the Taipei Liaison Office to leave Pretoria.

A spokesperson for the South Africa’s foreign ministry told Reuters “our department is coordinating with the Taipei liaison office regarding administrative matters related to accurately representing its diplomatic classification in South Africa.

Advertisement

China is South Africa’s largest trading partner globally and one with which it is looking to expand cooperation in areas such as renewable energy.

Taiwan’s government rejects China’s sovereignty claims and says it has a right to forge ties with other countries.

Taiwan only has formal diplomatic ties with 12 countries, and in Africa it only has a single ally left, Eswatini, which is almost surrounded by South Africa.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 Naija Blitz News