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.

  • @SoylentBlake@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    29 months ago

    I’d love to see a suit taking a corporation to the mat in that in its mere modern existence it’s usurped the founders intent…

    Which was a frothing contempt for them. They recognized they were helpful for big projects that society needed, so a charter would be granted to say…build a bridge…and upon completion immediately disbanded.

    Id call this the greatest court in history if they restored that. I think the earth rotations reversing is more likely.

    • @FlowVoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      It’s not necessarily the founders intent that matters. It’s whoever wrote the text in question.

      So when interpreting a law about corporations written in 1930, what matters is how “corporation” was defined in 1930 not 1787.