The dissenting judges who’ve cited the president as “not an officer” are strict textualists. The 14th amendment explicitly mentions titles up to and including the vice president, but fails to mention POTUS. It was written to prevent Confederates from holding elected office after the Civil War. I would really struggle to believe that this would have been written to exclude all those offices, but not the highest in the land…
While this recent decision was 4-3 in Colorado, even the 3 dissenting judges took no issue with the fact that Trump was complicit in January 6th, as an insurrection.
I believe even the lower court agreed with that as well, oddly enough their issue was just not registering President of the US as an “officer” of the United States.
Jan 6th wouldn’t have happened without Trump. This has been repeatedly admitted by those already found guilty of assaulting the capitol. I understand the “not yet found guilty” claim, but this decision by removing him from the ballot doesn’t result in Trump being served with any jail time or fines or anything.
It expressly, and only removes him from being eligible to hold office. He’s perfectly fine to get a different job.
Fun fact. Gorsuch ruled this in Colorado, and this quote is cited in this recent ruling concerning Trump being kicked off the ballot:
But, as the magistrate judge’s opinion makes clear and we expressly reaffirm here, a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.
up to and including the vice president
I can’t find this part in Section 3.
“Section 3. 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.”
Excuse me, I misspoke. You’re right. Vice President is also not explicitly mentioned. Thanks for catching that
[deleted] [Added filler text to meet minimum character requirement.]
The SCoCO determined he was.
The question is whether he is in fact constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.
The q is will the Supreme Court see it the same way
The SCoCO determined he was.
SCOTUS should decline to take the case, as it’s explicitly a state issue under Article I. Failing that, they should uphold the SCoCO decision, again under Article I.
Given the makeup and…compromised nature of some of the Justices, I’m just not sure.
The q is will the Supreme Court see it the same way
CO’s using a constitutional amendment as reason to make trump ineligible. I’m not a scholar but I’m pretty sure SC has the last say in terms of interpretation of the constitution, so I don’t really see anything preventing them from hearing the case
SCOTUS should decline to take the case, as it’s explicitly a state issue under Article I. Failing that, they should uphold the SCoCO decision, again under Article I.
Given the makeup and…compromised nature of some of the Justices, I’m just not sure.
Fun fact. Gorsuch ruled this in Colorado, and this quote is cited in this recent ruling concerning Trump being kicked off the ballot:
But, as the magistrate judge’s opinion makes clear and we expressly reaffirm here, a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.
Which is not truly in question, given the 14th amendment bars those who have previously held office and engaged in insurrection from being an elector for president.
Trump doesn’t want to be an elector.
Regardless, the amendment is about people who have been “officer of the United States”, and it’s under debate whether that applies to the President. Some scholars have said it refers only to appointed officials, not to elected ones, and that the president is not an ‘officer of the United States’ for purposes of Section 3. So the SC should rule about that specific wording.
Which is not truly in question, given the 14th amendment bars those who have previously held office and engaged in insurrection from being an elector for president.
This is the dumbest argument of all time
Trump doesn’t want to be an elector.
Regardless, the amendment is about people who have been “officer of the United States”, and it’s under debate whether that applies to the President. Some scholars have said it refers only to appointed officials, not to elected ones, and that the president is not an ‘officer of the United States’ for purposes of Section 3. So the SC should rule about that specific wording.