The Colorado Supreme Court ruled last month that the former president could not appear on the state’s Republican primary ballot because he had engaged in insurrection.

The case turns on the meaning of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, which bars those who had taken an oath “to support the Constitution of the United States” from holding office if they then “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

  • Billiam
    8•11 months ago

    Alright, I’ll play devil’s advocate:

    Yes, you are correct in your description of what Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says, and what it should mean. However, there is no legal (as opposed to a dictionary or layman’s) definitions on what “insurrection” or “rebellion” are, whether the events of January 6th meet either of those definitions, what the definition of “engaged” is, whether the actions Trump took (or didn’t take) meet that definition, and (as you already pointed out) whether the President is considered “an officer under the United States.”

    Failing any one of those conditions means Trump wins:

    • SCOTUS could say that merely trying to stop Congress from counting votes instead of dismantling the entire system of government doesn’t rise to the definition of “insurrection” or “rebellion.”
    • SCOTUS could say that inciting your cult to attack Congress or failing to take action to stop them doesn’t constitute “engaging.”
    • SCOTUS could say that Colorado erred in its interpretation of the Presidency as an “Office.”

    As you said, this is facile and semantic, but the unfortunate truth is that our legal system absolutely runs on semantics. We are heading for a Bush v. Gore Redux, especially when you consider how many of the current SCOTUS justices had a hand in that decision.

    (And no, Trump shouldn’t be allowed to run because traitors usually aren’t able to do much of anything.) (edit: had to fix this sentence.)