Oyez, oyez!Colorado Attempt To Use 14th Amendment To Boot Trump From Ballot Fails

submitted by CaelianPost No Toasties from self.WayOfTheBern

A third attempt to use the 14th Amendment's Clause 3 to keep Trump off a state's ballot has failed. This one is particularly important since it applies to both the primary and general election. The other two failed attempts were in Minnesota and Michigan, and only apply to primaries.

NPR: A Colorado judge finds Trump 'engaged in insurrection,' but keeps him on the ballot

The judge's reasoning is interesting:

In her decision, [Colorado District Judge Sarah B.] Wallace said she found that Trump did in fact "engage in insurrection" on Jan. 6 and rejected his attorneys' arguments that he was simply engaging in free speech. Normally, that would be enough to disqualify him under Section 3, but she said she couldn't do so for a presidential candidate.

Section 3 does not specifically refer to the presidency, as it does members of the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives. Instead, the clause refers to "elector of President and Vice President," along with civil and military offices.

"Part of the Court's decision is its reluctance to embrace an interpretation which would disqualify a presidential candidate without a clear, unmistakable indication that such is the intent of Section Three," the judge wrote in the 102-page ruling.

Here is the 14th Amendment's Section 3:

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office

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.

Judge Wallace figures that if Congress had meant Section 3 to apply to the President, it would have said so. IIRC Section 3 was written specifically to exclude from office those who had fought against the Union in the Civil War. Trump is old, but not that old.

Maybe it's time for the Democratic Party to find themselves a better candidate for November 2024?

all 2 comments
sorted by:
new (suggested)
topinsightfulfun

[–]penelopepnortneyBecome ungovernable 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The other point about that section of the 14th amendment is that it gives sole authority for enforcing it to the US Congress, nowhere does it leave room for state governments to pull ballot access stunts like this.

Jonathan Turley tweeted this:

...While Judge Wallace reached the right conclusion, she committed, in my view, fundamental errors in her analysis on the free speech elements of the case...

...As it stands, we will have to wait to see if Secretary Griswald has the confidence of her convictions to appeal. I hope that she does. We need to put this insidious legal theory to rest with the finality and clarity of a Supreme Court decision.

[–]penelopepnortneyBecome ungovernable 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

From his piece on the subject:

Colorado Judge Sarah Wallace has become the latest jurist to reject the effort to bar former president Donald Trump from the ballot under the novel 14th Amendment theory. I have long been a vocal critic of the theory, which I view as historically and legally unfounded. I also view it as arguably the most dangerous theory to arise in decades.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — the “disqualification clause” — was written after the 39th Congress convened in December 1865 and many members were shocked to see Alexander Stephens, the Confederate vice president, waiting to take a seat with an array of other former Confederate senators and military officers. That was a real rebellion in which hundreds of thousands died.

While Judge Wallace reached the right result, I have major qualms with her analysis. She states as a fact that Trump was guilty of incitement, a charge that no prosecutor has ever brought against him. That includes the D.C. Attorney General who announced his intention to pursue such charges. It also includes Special Counsel Jack Smith who threw every other possible criminal charge against Trump.