The Five Arguments Former President Donald Trump Will Argue Before the U.S. Supreme Court in Colorado Ballot Case
Former President Donald Trump is being heard in his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court regarding his eligibility to be on Colorado's ballot, and his attorneys have presented five compelling arguments to support his case.
The outcome of this appeal could have far-reaching implications and potentially determine whether Trump can make a return to the White House.
One of the key questions at the center of this appeal is the interpretation of the phrase "officer of the United States" in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Trump's lawyers argue that this term refers specifically to appointed officials, such as cabinet secretaries and leaders of government agencies, rather than anyone who holds a federal office. If the Supreme Court agrees with Trump's interpretation, it will mean that even former presidents would not be subject to the anti-insurrection provision of the 14th Amendment.
The appeal stems from the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling that Trump disqualified himself by allegedly inciting the mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. Trump's attorneys have presented four reasons to overturn this decision, which could have implications beyond the Colorado case, potentially resolving similar challenges across the country. One argument applies solely to Colorado.
If the majority of justices reject all of Trump's arguments, other states would be free to exclude him from their ballots based on their own election laws. Trump's attorneys have warned that such a scenario would lead to chaos and bedlam.
The case hinges on a section of the 14th Amendment that was enacted after the Civil War to bar individuals who engaged in insurrection from holding office. The clause says:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Trump's lawyers argue that he is not an "officer of the United States" as used in the Constitution and that he did not engage in insurrection. They also claim that only Congress has the authority to enforce the ban outlined in the 14th Amendment.
The other side counters that the natural meaning of "officer of the United States" includes anyone who holds a federal office, a term that has been applied to the president since the founding of the nation. They argue that swearing to "defend" the Constitution is equally if not more demanding than promising to "support" it. They also contend that Trump's actions on January 6th can be considered as engaging in insurrection, even if he did not personally commit violent acts.
Trump's attorneys further argue that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment only prohibits someone from holding office, not running for office. They assert that Congress should have the final say in determining whether the provision should prevent someone from holding office.
However, the opposing side argues that Congress was granted the power to remove the ban, indicating that the provision was enforceable as soon as the amendment was ratified. They caution that waiting to decide Trump's eligibility until after millions of Americans have voted could result in mass disenfranchisement and a constitutional crisis.
READ MORE:
Trump's attorneys also contend that Colorado law does not allow the state to order his removal from the ballot. They argue that Section 3 does not apply to candidates, only officeholders. On the other hand, those challenging Trump's eligibility assert that states have the authority to regulate presidential elections and can exclude candidates who do not meet the Constitution's eligibility requirements.
As this appeal is heard by the Supreme Court, the outcome will undoubtedly have significant implications for Trump's future political aspirations. The arguments put forth by both sides highlight the complexities and potential consequences surrounding this case. The nation will be watching closely as the Supreme Court deliberates on this crucial matter.