On Monday, substantial proceedings commenced in a courtroom located in Colorado, centering on a novel proposition to irrevocably disqualify former President Donald Trump from seeking re-election to the White House. This proposal is founded upon a controversial claim pertaining to a clause within the Fourteenth Amendment.

The plaintiffs in the complaint argue that a prohibition on Trump’s federal electoral candidacy is warranted on account of his alleged activities on January 6, 2021. A disturbance occurred at the U.S. Capitol on that particular day, following a speech given by Trump in close proximity to the aforementioned location in Washington, D.C. The uprising has been labeled a “insurrection” by specific Republicans and Democrats, who ascribe to Trump the responsibility for inciting the crowd. As of yet, Trump has not been indicted in connection with that specific offense.

ABC News reports that a similar proceeding is slated to commence in the state of Minnesota on Thursday. As per the source, the outlet comprises the following:

On Monday morning in Denver, a historic five-day evidentiary hearing got underway for a lawsuit filed against Trump by six Republican and unaffiliated Colorado voters, represented by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).

CREW President Noah Bookbinder has said that his organization brought its suit in Colorado because “it is necessary to defend our republic both today and in the future.” The group’s complaint accuses Trump of inciting and aiding the mob at the Capitol two years ago, which he denies. He was impeached on similar charges but acquitted by Republicans in the Senate.

For an extended period, Trump has refuted any involvement in sedition or revolt. Regarding the 14th Amendment cases, a representative for his campaign recently declared, “Those who are pursuing this ridiculous conspiracy theory and political attack on President Trump are stretching the law beyond recognition.”

In addition to the hundreds of politicians present, including California Representative Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) of the far left, CREW counsel summoned two Capitol Police officers who were in attendance on that particular day.

“The events on Jan. 6, 2021, in the United States Capitol were horrific. It was a terrorist attack on the United States of America, an assault on democracy and an attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power,” one of the officers, Danny Hodges, speculated.

In their opening statement, a CREW attorney asserted that, “Trump incited a violent mob to attack our Capitol to stop the peaceful transfer of power under our Constitution. … And we are here because Trump claims after all that he has the right to be president again.”

CNN reports that another “longshot” 14th Amendment case filed by “John Anthony Castro, a little-known Republican presidential candidate, was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year. He sued Trump to try and have him disqualified from the presidency because of his alleged support of the insurrectionists and convicted criminals who violently attacked our United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.”

His case, along with those of others, is predicated on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies from federal political office individuals who have “aided or comforted insurrectionists” or “engaged in insurrection or rebellion.” This amendment was one of three that were ratified after the Civil War. This clause has been invoked only twice in the history of the amendment, and both times in opposition to former Confederates.

Robert Delahunty, a Fellow at the Claremont Institute’s Center for the American Way of Life and John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley and a former deputy assistant attorney general for the United States, argued in an August Federalist column that it will be futile to prevent Trump from assuming office using the Fourteenth Amendment.

While both parties acknowledge that the “insurrection clause” of the amendment remains valid in the present day, they hold a different viewpoint than legal scholars who contend that it applies to Trump.

“While their theory about the continuing relevance of the Constitution’s insurrection clause strikes us as correct, they err in believing that anyone, down to the lowest county election worker, has the right to strike Trump from the ballot,” they wrote.