LISTEN HERE:
A significant contingent, including numerous attorneys general hailing from states with a Republican majority, have submitted legal documents in a case questioning the constitutional eligibility of the former President, Donald Trump, to be on Colorado’s ballot in 2024.
This legal process follows an adverse ruling to a group of six voters who claimed that Trump instigated the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. The case is now queued for oral hearings in the Colorado Supreme Court this week.
Judge Sarah B. Wallace, in her ruling of November 17, expressed that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has no bearing on the presidency. This conclusion was made despite her acknowledgment that Trump behaved in a manner that resembles ‘insurrection’ as delineated in said provision.
The provision prohibits any individual from re-occupying an office after having previously sworn an oath of allegiance to the Constitution. Promptly after the judgment, both factions appealed the case to the supreme judicial authority of the state.
The compainants, backed by the Washington based nonprofit, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, have labeled Judge Wallace’s verdict that the president is not constituted in the cadre of the ‘officer(s) of the United States’ specified in Section 3 as ‘ludicrous’. Trump’s attorneys have petitioned the Supreme Court to review multiple elements of the case, particularly the decision that suggests the former president was implicated in a purported rebellion.
Multiple impartial entities have furnished briefs either favoring or opposing the determination of this case within the Colorado Supreme Court. Furthermore, similar impediments to Trump’s possible 2024 run have been presented in various other states, and all are anticipating the verdict of the federal government by the nation’s highest court.
A collective of nineteen states with a Republican inclination, led by Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, highlighted that the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ arguments in cases alike in Minnesota and Michigan. Their filed brief dated Nov. 29 states, ‘The 14th Amendment assigns questions related to the Insurrection Clause to the Congress, not state officials or state courts,’ further expressing concerns that allowing individual state courts to determine eligibility would lead to a complicated tangle of differing prerequisites for presidential candidates.
In support of the lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs, an amicus brief was submitted by Mary Estill Buchanan, Colorado’s former Secretary of State and member of the Republican Party. Her communication to the court declared: ‘Our country and its institutions are facing a critical juncture.’ She admonished Trump for allowing his desire for power to overcome his Oath of Office and over two centuries’ worth of political heritage.
On the 6th of December, the Colorado Supreme Court is scheduled to conduct a two-hour oral hearing on the case starting at 1 p.m. In November, a legal scholar offered a detailed analysis on the state judge’s ruling in Colorado which concerned the efforts to strike down Trump’s name from the 2024 ballot on the grounds of the ‘insurrection’ clause of the 14th Amendment.
On scrutinizing the judge’s ruling, Fox News analyst Sol Wisenberg identified a single ‘significant’ point, that the judge exercised restraint. He also speculated that depending on the resolution by the state Supreme Court, the case in Colorado could potentially influence the 2024 presidential election.
The underlying determinant here appears to be the interpretation of the 14th amendment’s Section 3 and whether it is applicable to a former president like Trump. The clause clearly dictates that no person who has held office and sworn an oath to the Constitution should engage in rebellion or insurrection and then expect to hold office again.
Eyes will be keenly following the Colorado Supreme Court’s actions as they take up the oral arguments. The Court’s interpretation could have a broader, more long-lasting impact on our understanding of constitutional eligibility and its possible extensions or limitations.
The makeup of ruling parties across the United States lends an extra layer of intrigue to this legal challenge. With the plurality of states involved leaning Republican, it reinforces the ubiquity of the case’s implications on both sides of the aisle, emphasizing its importance not just in Colorado, but at a national level too.
Each state and its court exercising independent judgment could indeed lead to inconsistency in eligibility requirements for presidential candidates. And yet, it’s worth remembering that it’s not simply about a party’s preference or political alignment, but should be about upholding the Constitution and the principles it sets forward.
Interestingly, the case is seeing involvement from impartial entities who have no affiliation with either the plaintiffs or the defendants. They have chosen to become involved due to the potential profound implications that the case’s verdict could have on the interpretation of the Constitutional law.
What is truly emphasized by intervening interest from legal and constitutional experts is the spectacle this case has become. They have begun to posit that, beyond its primary intent, the case has now become a crucible where fundamental perceptions of power, authority and democracy are being put to the test.
It’s evident that such a challenge is far from routine. Legal battles of this nature are rare, and the outcome could, indeed, have a resonating impact on the future of the presidential office and any individual, like Trump, wishing to return to it.
In sum, it seems the fate of the 2024 ballot and potential candidates hinges not only on the upcoming court decisions in Colorado and elsewhere. The interpretations of the 14th Amendment and the perspectives on the limit or extension of presidential power will also shape the future trajectory of American politics.
