Historians Support Colorado's Attempt to Remove Trump from Presidential Ballot

More than two dozen historians specializing in the Civil War and the Reconstruction have filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Colorado's efforts to remove Donald Trump from the state's presidential ballot.

Citing the 14th Amendment, which prohibits insurrectionists from holding office, the historians argue that the evidence from the decision-makers who crafted the amendment in 1868 clearly demonstrates its applicability to the presidency.

The group of historians stated in their brief, "For historians, contemporary evidence from the decision-makers who sponsored, backed, and voted for the 14th amendment is most probative. Analysis of this evidence demonstrates that decision-makers crafted section three to cover the president and to create an enduring check on insurrection, requiring no additional action from Congress."

Speaking to supporters at a rally in Las Vegas on Saturday, Former President Donald “Trump spoke sarcastically that he’s been treated worse than any other president in American history – including President Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.”

Lawyers representing Trump, on the other hand, contend that the presidency does not fall under the definition of an "office" as described in the 14th Amendment. They argue that only congressional action can prevent someone from running for office and that Trump did not incite an insurrection.

It is worth noting that Trump was impeached by Congress for inciting an insurrection, specifically the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021. While Trump was impeached with the support of 10 House Republicans, he was ultimately acquitted as only seven Senate Republicans voted to convict him.

Amicus briefs, such as the one filed by the historians, allow interested parties to present relevant arguments. In a separate brief, nearly 180 Republicans expressed their support for Trump. Among the 25 historians who signed the brief, James McPherson of Princeton, a renowned civil war scholar, stands out as a prominent figure.

The historians point to the congressional debates of the 1860s to support their argument. They highlight an exchange between Senator Reverdy Johnson of Maryland, a Democratic opponent of the 14th Amendment, and Republican Lot Morrill of Maine. When challenged on why section three of the amendment omitted the president, Morrill referred to the words "or hold any office civil or military under the United States." Johnson admitted his error, and no other senator questioned whether section three covered the president.

The historians also draw attention to Andrew Johnson, the first president to be impeached in 1868. Johnson referred to himself as the "chief executive officer," suggesting that the presidency is indeed an office as described in the 14th Amendment.

Furthermore, the historians argue that section three of the 14th Amendment is self-executing, meaning it does not require additional congressional action.

They note that no former Confederate, instantly disqualified from holding office under section three, was disqualified by an act of Congress. Jefferson Davis, the Confederate president, even cited his own disqualification as a reason to quash an indictment for treason.

The historians underscore the intent of the 14th Amendment to create a lasting impact. They state, "Contemporary information provides direct evidence of the enduring reach of the 14th amendment. Congress chose to make disqualification permanent through a constitutional amendment."

READ MORE:

• COLORADO SECRETARY OF STATE REQUESTS MORE TIME FOR ORAL ARGUMENTS IN TRUMP BALLOT ELIGIBILITY CASE

• A GROUP OF COLORADO VOTERS URGES SUPREME COURT TO UPHOLD A LOWER COURT, BARING TRUMP FROM BALLOT

• 11 STATES URGE U.S. SUPREME COURT TO PROTECT PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY BALLOT INTEGRITY

• FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP CHALLENGES SUPREME COURT DECISION IN COLORADO BALLOT CASE

They also mention that amnesty for former Confederates had adverse consequences, as many ex-Confederates went on to hold office and perpetuate racial discrimination in the South, undermining the purpose of the 14th and 15th Amendments that aimed to protect the rights of formerly enslaved individuals.

In conclusion, the historians assert that the Supreme Court should recognize that section three of the 14th Amendment applies to the present and future, requiring no additional acts of Congress for implementation. While some argue that barring Trump from running would be anti-democratic, the historians emphasize the importance of upholding the constitutional principles and the intent behind the 14th Amendment.

The court's decision will undoubtedly have significant implications for the upcoming elections and the interpretation of the Constitution.