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.”

  • gravitas_deficiencyEnglish
    322·
    1 year ago

    The thing is, the 14th Amendment, Section 3 isn’t vague on this point:

    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.

    Look at the wording - it’s clearly intended to be an automatic disqualification. The only way you could possibly arrive at the conclusion that the Office of the President is exempt from this section is by jumping through frankly absurd and facile semantic hoops.

    But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

    Pointedly, the only way Congress should be involved (per the relevant section) is in rescinding the disqualification.

    But I’m sure the Tribunal of Six will be more than happy to just say “fuck you, we don’t care”. At which point… well, they’re only appointed for life, and they did somewhat recently vastly broaden the scope of the 2nd Amendment, and political violence is on the rise, so I wouldn’t be shocked if one or more people decided enough is enough and conducted a “citizen’s kinetic impeachment”, as it were.

    Regardless of how things ultimately turn out, things are definitely 10/10 fucky, and I absolutely hate it.

    • Billiam@lemmy.world
      113·
      1 year 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.)