Introduction: Understanding the Disqualification Section of the 14th Amendment
The 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution is a critical piece of legislation that addresses various aspects of citizenship and equal protection under the law. One significant but often overlooked section of this amendment is the disqualification clause, which outlines the eligibility for holding public office. Understanding its legal implications ensures a fair and transparent political landscape.
In Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, the disqualification section states that anyone who has engaged in rebellion or insurrection against the United States or provided aid and comfort to its enemies shall be disqualified from holding any office within the country. This provision responded to individuals who supported or participated in acts of treason during the Civil War. It also prevents those who engage in rebellion at any time, such as those who engaged directly or indirectly in the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Based on a review of research in the literature on the January 6th attack, insurrection, the House Jan. 6 report, the election interference indictment against Trump, Donald Trump should be disqualified from holding office in the United States, and therefore kept off primary and general election ballots for the 2024 election.
it’s not too late. Read on.
Section 3
The legal implications of this clause are far-reaching. It serves as a deterrent for those contemplating treasonous actions, reminding them that such behavior will result in being barred from future public service. Additionally, it upholds the principles of loyalty and allegiance to one’s country by ensuring that those who have actively worked against it cannot hold positions where they could potentially harm national interests. Donald Trump’s actions prior to, during, and after the attack on the United States capitol have caused several states to bar him from the Republican primary ballot. He has participated in an insurrection. See the next section.
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3 reads as follows:
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 (emphasis mine), 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.
Source: Constitution Annotated
The disqualification section of the 14th amendment prohibits anyone who engages in an insurrection from holding office. This includes those insurrectionists who previously took an oath: members of congress, or officer of the United States. In Nixon v. Fitsgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982), it was established the President as the chief constitutional officer of the Executive Branch with supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity. I put emphasis on this sentence in Section 3 because there are some who don’t think the disqualification clause applies to Donald Trump. Nixon v. Fitsgerald shows that it does. It identifies the president as an officer of the Executive Branch.
The Recent Colorado Supreme Court 5/4 Ruling Against Trump: What it Means
Recently, the Colorado Supreme Court has been at the center of attention due to its rulings on a highly debated issue: Donald Trump’s eligibility and ballot access. This crucial decision has sparked legal challenges and ignited discussions regarding the boundaries of presidential qualifications. The court’s judicial decisions hold immense significance, not only for Colorado but also for the entire nation. Several states have dealt with the same issue that surfaced in Colorado. Trump was bared from the ballot in Maine. California, in a similar case ruled that Trump could be on the primary ballot.
The Colorado Supreme Court blocked Trump from the 2024 ballot. This was a landmark case, but it was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Oral arguments will be heard on February 8, 2024.
The Importance of Amicus Briefs in Shaping Supreme Court Decisions on Disqualification Cases
In the intricate world of law, amicus briefs are crucial in shaping court decisions and ensuring fair legal advocacy. These friend-of-the-court briefs are submitted by individuals or organizations with relevant expertise or a vested interest in a particular case. While not directly involved as parties to the litigation, amicus curiae briefs provide valuable insights, supporting arguments, and additional perspectives that can significantly influence the outcome of a case.
According to reports, the Supreme Court has been flooded with Amicus Briefs in support of both sides. According Chase Woodruff, about two-thirds of the 47 amicus briefs filed as of Jan. 26 came from parties supporting Trump’s appeal. Republicans have come out of the woodwork to write supporting amici. Only one Democratic office holder has issued a brief.
These friends-of-the-court briefs are important to the case, if read and studied. However, regardless of the nature of the briefs, it’s the nine jurists on the Supreme Court that have the final say.
Brief of Experts in Democracy
I subscribe to Dr. Ruth Ben-Ghiat’s blog on Substack. In her most recent post, Ruth reported that she and five others who are among the world’s leading experts on democracy, political violence, and the rule of law, submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Donald J. Trump v. Norma Anderson, ET AL. The experts include: Dr. Ruth Ben-Ghiat, Dr. Sheri Berman, Dr. Larry Diamond, Dr. Rachel Kleinfeld, Dr. Stephen Levitsky, and Dr. Timothy Snyder.
They have studied and written extensively about the fragility of democracy and the role of political violence in contributing to democratic decline. Amici are uniquely positioned to provide a perspective to this Court on the ways that the experience of American democracy leading up to, during, and after January 6, 2021, echoes patterns from around the world of the corrosion of democratic government by political violence.
Summary of Expert’s Brief
The expert’s brief seeks to provide the Court with an understanding of how the events surrounding the 2020 election and the violence on January 6, 2021 appear in relation to events that have caused democratic erosion and collapse in other countries. For example, they stress that Trump’s actions in the wake of the November 2020 election are alarmingly similar to activities that have destroyed democracies in other countries.
One of the key notions is that Trump has refused to concede power. Pressure to alter the election continued after the election and up to January 6. Trump also used state violence to retain power. Trump cultivated ties to groups who would be willing to use violence, as seen on January 6. He allowed the Oath Keepers to serve as security for multiple election rallies in 2016 and 2020. Trump deployed private violence to pressure election officials who could alter election results. Trump himself participated in this charade by calling election officials in Georgia (Brad Raffensperger), and other swing states.
In addition to their persuasive power within judicial proceedings, amicus briefs contribute to legal scholarship. They provide comprehensive analysis and scholarly insights into law areas requiring clarification or development. They enrich the jurisprudence landscape by offering fresh perspectives and contributing to ongoing debates.
Brief of a Conservative Think Tank
The brief was prepared John Yoo for the conservative think tank at Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy. They want to push us back to the period of the nation’s founding. They conveniently skip over the Reconstruction Amendments, one of which is the 14th Amendment.
Summary of the Conservative Brief. A former president is not within the jurisdictional scope of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. They also claim that section 3 is not enforceable without legislation. They also claim that section 3’s offense (insurrection) requires congressional legislation.
Conclusion: The Emanate Decision by Supreme Court on Trump’s Eligibility to Run for President
The U.S. Supreme Court is about to make a landmark decision regarding how to interpret the disqualification section of the 14th amendment. Will the Supreme Court keep Trump off the ballot because of his participation in the January 6 attack on the Capitol. Will the U.S. Supreme Court agree with the Colorado Supreme Court? Or will the Supreme Court decide that the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to a President? Or, perhaps, they will decide not to act on the appeal until after the election?
One of the key questions for the Supreme Court is whether January 6 was an insurrection. I believe that there is ample evidence that the events of January 6 constituted an insurrection. An “insurrection,” by definition, is a “violent uprising against an authority or government.”
Insurrection
Trump was impeached for a second time in aftermath of the January 6 attack by the House of Representatives and was charged for incitement of insurrection for his conduct. U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell accused Trump provoking a riot, called the attack a “failed insurrection,” that the “mob was fed lies”, and they were “provoked by powerful people.” The FBI director, Christopher Wray, who was appointed by Trump, called the attack as domestic terrorism.
If you read the amicus brief presented by the “experts on democracy,” you will read a history of how authoritarians such as Donald Trump have interceded to bring down democracies in other countries in other times.
One of the unfortunate outcomes that will occur if the Supreme Court keeps Trump off the ballot will be violence. He’s already used violence to try and over turn the 2020 election. His speeches and rallies encourage supporters to use violence to fight against the others. We are at a cross roads in our democracy. We need to take the path that supports the rule of law, not the path that will lead us into a dictatorship.
0 Comments