For all those other non-Americans like me who are not completely up to date on this:
Trump was barred by the Colorado Supreme Court from appearing in the Republican primary in the state because of his role in the January 6 insurrection, reversing a previous decision by a lower court that ruled that while Trump did engage in insurrection, he’s technically not an “officer of the United States”, which apparently makes insurrection OK. This will almost certainly go to the US Supreme Court which appears likely to overturn it, given some of their previous decisions and the fact that it contains 3 Trump appointees. Colorado is a solidly Democratic state which is very likely to go to Biden anyway, but the decision still seems quite important, given that this is the first time something like this has happened.
Trump’s campaign called the decision “undemocratic”, Biden’s campaign declined to comment.
And amendments supercede all preceding verbiage in the constitution. The only way out of being disqualified by the 14th is to have congress vote on it as provided for in the amendment.
I agree with your sentiment, it seems like clear language to me. Unfortunately a lower court in Colorado had already interpreted the presidency as not “being an officer of the United States”. SCOTUS could easily just uphold that previous ruling while not weighing into a states election laws. (I think IANAL)
SCOTUS these days can and will make up whatveer the fuck rationalization they want to justify any decision, and then tagline it with “but this only applies to this one specific scenario” to keep from locking themselves out of ruling the opposite way next time.
Last year (or earlier this year?) they ruled on a case where the event that triggered the suit was literally made up and never happened, and everyone knew it.
It’s all about setting a precedent. Just look at how many states are trying to open up investigations on the false electors following in the footsteps of other states.
With this ruling, maybe you get a Virginia or a New Jersey or an Oregon to take up a similar case and yield a similar decision now that the stigma of being first is gone.
And if one becomes two becomes five likely blue states who issue these 14A rulings (not that it will, but hypothetically) then you might see a Nevada or an Arizona or worst case for Trump, even a Wisconsin, Ohio, or Pennsylvania case break that way.
And if that happens, honestly, that might cook his goose.
It’s a very, very long shot. Realistically, I expect SCOTUS to overturn this, and for that to be that on this front.
I’ve also wondered what happens if, say, SCOTUS overturns the Colorado ruling and Colorado in response basically says, “Hey fuck yourself SCOTUS, we run elections the way we chose, and at least in Colorado, his name’s not going on the ballot regardless of what you say.” I know there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell of that happening, but like…what would happen next? Does the federal government send in their own election staff all across the state with their own machines and the ballot that SCOTUS dictates? Do they arrest the governor? Do they nullify the state’s electoral votes?
For all those other non-Americans like me who are not completely up to date on this:
Trump was barred by the Colorado Supreme Court from appearing in the Republican primary in the state because of his role in the January 6 insurrection, reversing a previous decision by a lower court that ruled that while Trump did engage in insurrection, he’s technically not an “officer of the United States”, which apparently makes insurrection OK. This will almost certainly go to the US Supreme Court which appears likely to overturn it, given some of their previous decisions and the fact that it contains 3 Trump appointees. Colorado is a solidly Democratic state which is very likely to go to Biden anyway, but the decision still seems quite important, given that this is the first time something like this has happened.
Trump’s campaign called the decision “undemocratic”, Biden’s campaign declined to comment.
SCOTUS would have to rule that States can not hold their own elections which would violate the Consitution. Odds are they won’t hear the case.
Can’t they just reinterpret the insurrection clause? That has no besring on states holding their own elections.
Most clauses are pretty legalize, but Congress wrote the 14th Amendment in plain English.
And amendments supercede all preceding verbiage in the constitution. The only way out of being disqualified by the 14th is to have congress vote on it as provided for in the amendment.
I agree with your sentiment, it seems like clear language to me. Unfortunately a lower court in Colorado had already interpreted the presidency as not “being an officer of the United States”. SCOTUS could easily just uphold that previous ruling while not weighing into a states election laws. (I think IANAL)
I disagree slightly. It doesn’t specify that the president is included under “officers”, but that would be the most reasonable interpretation by far.
There’s no way, when it was written, they were leaving a loophole for Jefferson Davis to run for president!
SCOTUS these days can and will make up whatveer the fuck rationalization they want to justify any decision, and then tagline it with “but this only applies to this one specific scenario” to keep from locking themselves out of ruling the opposite way next time.
Last year (or earlier this year?) they ruled on a case where the event that triggered the suit was literally made up and never happened, and everyone knew it.
No, all they have to do is say that the POTUS is not an “Officer” therefore loophole for exactly one person in history.
They’ve nearly done it before with the 2000 election.
they’ll figure out some way to make it a “compelled speech” issue that violates the first amendment.
Good explanation but a little nit: Colorado is a very purple state. We’re the home of Lauren Boebert and Focus on the Family after all.
I don’t think a Republican has won the presidential vote since GW Bush here though
It’s all about setting a precedent. Just look at how many states are trying to open up investigations on the false electors following in the footsteps of other states.
Exactly.
With this ruling, maybe you get a Virginia or a New Jersey or an Oregon to take up a similar case and yield a similar decision now that the stigma of being first is gone.
And if one becomes two becomes five likely blue states who issue these 14A rulings (not that it will, but hypothetically) then you might see a Nevada or an Arizona or worst case for Trump, even a Wisconsin, Ohio, or Pennsylvania case break that way.
And if that happens, honestly, that might cook his goose.
It’s a very, very long shot. Realistically, I expect SCOTUS to overturn this, and for that to be that on this front.
I’ve also wondered what happens if, say, SCOTUS overturns the Colorado ruling and Colorado in response basically says, “Hey fuck yourself SCOTUS, we run elections the way we chose, and at least in Colorado, his name’s not going on the ballot regardless of what you say.” I know there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell of that happening, but like…what would happen next? Does the federal government send in their own election staff all across the state with their own machines and the ballot that SCOTUS dictates? Do they arrest the governor? Do they nullify the state’s electoral votes?
Has Trump won a single ruling that has made it to SCotUS?