If there's one "good" thing to come out of Trump's political career is that he was able to expose a lot of the weaknesses that our government and our Constitution have when it comes to enforcement of the Constitution, while simultaneously being too stupid to be able to do too much damage in the process. Things could be far, far worse if Trump had the poltical acumen of someone like Mitch McConnell.

What he's shown is that we need to answer a lot of the questions that have been raised during his term. The Constitution says that someone who aides in insurrection or gives aid and comfort to those that do are disqualified from being President. Ok, but who defines "insurrection"? What is "aid and comfort"? Who's responsible for declaring who is and isn't disqualified? How is it enforced? And how can the answers to these questions not be turned around and used against us by the opposing party?

That's the most on-topic example, but there are tons of examples just in the Constitution alone. How are these things defined? Who's responsible for enforcement? What are the penalties for breaking these laws?

The answer to all of these questions is often little more than a shrug. And we do need to get these answers before Trump 2.0 comes along and exploits these unanswered questions to actually accomplish what Trump and his stooges were trying to accomplish on January 6th.

The bad part is that even when Democrats controlled both houses, there was virtually zero appetite to even discuss how to start answering these questions. And in the absence of congressional action, we'll have to rely on the Supreme Court to be able to make an objective, unbiased ruling for future leaders to follow. And there's no reason to believe that the Supreme Court won't make an honest, objective ruling, right? We've got this.....we've got this.......

I hope.

And when this ultimately lands on the Supreme Court we know exactly what happens

It would bar him from working at McDonald’s… yet here we are.

Since it wasn't explicitly named the group is

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington (CREW)

Yep.

This is the best summary I could come up with:

DENVER (AP) — A liberal group on Wednesday filed a lawsuit to bar former President Donald Trump from the primary ballot in Colorado, arguing he is ineligible to run for the White House again under a rarely used clause in the U.S. Constitution aimed at candidates who have supported an “insurrection.”

Liberal groups have demanded that states’ top election officials bar Trump under the clause that prohibits those who “engaged in an insurrection or rebellion” against the Constitution from holding higher office.

While a few fringe figures have filed thinly written lawsuits in a few states citing the clause, the litigation Wednesday was the first by an organization with significant legal resources.

Colorado’s secretary of state, Democrat Jena Griswold, said in a statement that she hoped “this case will provide guidance to election officials on Trump’s eligibility as a candidate for office.”

The lawsuit contends the case is clear, given the attempt by then-President Trump to overturn his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden and his support for the assault of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

The clause cites “presidential electors” but not presidents themselves as being disqualified if they previously swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and then broke it.

The original article contains 420 words, the summary contains 205 words. Saved 51%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

Unfortunately for those filing the suit, it actually requires an insurrection he was a part of