Trump banned from appearing on ballot by judges
Colorado Supreme Court Disqualifies Trump from Presidential Ballot
In a historic decision, the Colorado Supreme Court, comprised of justices appointed by Democratic governors, has declared former President Donald Trump ineligible for the White House under the U.S. Constitution’s insurrection clause. This ruling marks the first time that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has been used to disqualify a presidential candidate.
“A majority of the court holds that Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment,” the court wrote in its 4-3 decision.
The court’s decision overturns a ruling from a district court judge who found that Trump incited an insurrection for his role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. However, the district court judge had previously stated that it was unclear whether the provision applied to the presidency.
The Colorado Supreme Court has stayed its decision until January 4, pending a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court. The state officials have emphasized the urgency of settling the matter by January 5, the deadline for printing the presidential primary ballots.
“We do not reach these conclusions lightly,” wrote the court’s majority. “We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.”
Trump’s attorneys have vowed to appeal the disqualification to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has the final say on constitutional matters. The Republican National Committee also intends to support Trump in fighting this ruling, labeling it as “election interference.”
While Trump’s loss in Colorado during the 2020 election may not significantly impact his chances in the upcoming presidential election, the concern lies in the possibility of other courts and election officials following Colorado’s lead and excluding Trump from crucial states.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, designed to prevent former Confederates from returning to government after the Civil War, has been the basis for numerous lawsuits seeking to disqualify Trump. However, the Colorado case is the first where the plaintiffs have succeeded.
Legal experts believe that this ruling may embolden other state courts and secretaries to take similar actions, posing a major threat to Trump’s candidacy.
Chief Justice Brian D. Boatright dissented from the majority, arguing that the constitutional questions involved were too complex to be resolved in a state hearing. Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter and Justice Carlos Samour also dissented, emphasizing the importance of procedural due process before disqualifying a candidate from holding public office.
The Colorado ruling contrasts with the recent decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court, which allowed the state party to include anyone on its primary ballot. Another 14th Amendment case in Michigan has ruled that Congress, not the judiciary, should determine Trump’s eligibility for the ballot.
Trump’s allies have strongly criticized the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision, calling it “un-American” and part of a politically motivated effort to undermine his candidacy.
It remains to be seen how this legal battle will unfold, as Trump and his legal team prepare to take their case to the highest court in the land.
What is the argument made by Donald Trump’s legal team regarding the Colorado Supreme Court’s interpretation of the insurrection clause in the 14th Amendment?
His decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the Colorado Supreme Court’s interpretation of the insurrection clause is overly broad and misapplied. They claim that the clause was intended to disqualify individuals who have directly engaged in or supported armed insurrection against the United States, not those who have made controversial or inflammatory statements.
The insurrection clause in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states that no person shall hold any office if they have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or have given aid or comfort to its enemies. The provision was originally added to the Constitution in response to the Civil War and was primarily intended to prevent Confederate officials and military leaders from holding public office after the war.
In their decision, the Colorado Supreme Court acknowledged the unprecedented nature of disqualifying a presidential candidate under this provision and recognized the weight of the questions it raised. They emphasized their duty to apply the law impartially, without being influenced by public opinion or political considerations.
The decision has drawn mixed reactions from legal experts and commentators. Supporters argue that the court’s interpretation is consistent with the original intent of the insurrection clause and is a necessary step to prevent future instances of incitement to violence or insurrection. They argue that Trump’s actions leading up to and during the January 6 attack on the Capitol clearly meet the threshold for disqualification under the clause.
Critics, however, contend that the court’s decision sets a dangerous precedent by expanding the scope of the insurrection clause beyond its original meaning. They argue that political speech, no matter how controversial or inflammatory, should be protected under the First Amendment and should not be used as a basis for disqualifying a presidential candidate.
The resolution of this legal dispute now rests with the U.S. Supreme Court, which will have the final say on whether Trump’s disqualification is warranted under the insurrection clause. The outcome of this case will have significant implications for future interpretations of the provision and the scope of presidential eligibility.
In conclusion, the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to disqualify Donald Trump from the presidential ballot based on the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment marks a historic and unprecedented ruling. The court’s interpretation of the provision raises important questions about the limits of political speech and the disqualification of candidates for public office. With the case now before the U.S. Supreme Court, the ultimate fate of Trump’s candidacy and the broader implications for presidential eligibility will soon be determined.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...