The Case of the 14th Amendment as Revised by the Supreme Court: Why Did The Colorado Supreme Court Decide Against the President’s Candidate?
Republicans who are competing in the presidential nomination are promising to action against the Colorado court’s decision.
The Supreme Court will take this case seriously, according to a professor from the University of Baltimore School of Law who spoke to Morning Edition.
She said that there should be incentives for would-be presidents to not do what happened on January 6. “We are in a politicized world, and we have a politicized Supreme Court.”
Experts say it could choose to send the case back to the state level, or avoid ruling on the merits in some other way (like focusing on the wording of the clause, as the lower court in Colorado did).
This is not the only consequential case regarding Trump at the Supreme Court. The federal special counsel has asked the justices to quickly decide whether the former president enjoyed broad immunity from criminal charges as a result of his office.
The tough question when considering the 14th Amendment is not whether or not Trump is qualified to hold office, but who should make that decision. He believes the courts will want to leave it up to voters, and says he’s a little skeptical that “the law is going to decide this issue before the people do.”
If the people of America decide in November that they don’t want him, the courts never have to make a decision, he says.
The thoughtful opinion gives other courts something to look at, to see if they agree or disagree. But he said the incentives remain basically the same for Trump’s team to slow the process down and for the other side to speed things up.
Courts have ruled against similar efforts in Arizona, Minnesota and Michigan, though other legal battles are still pending — or have yet to be introduced — in other states.
After the court ruled on the case, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie criticized it. Speaking at an event in New Hampshire, he said Trump shouldn’t be prevented from being president by any court, but rather by the country’s voters.
The chair of the Colorado Republican Party said that if they need to pull out of the primary, they would caucus in favor of Donald Trump.
Just hours after the ruling Tuesday, Trump’s team sent an email with the subject line “REMOVED FROM THE BALLOT,” urging supporters to give to his campaign. The Colorado case has led to many ask from Trump who has been known to fundraise off his legal troubles and has a story of being mistreated by his enemies.
The chair of the Republican National Committee wrote on her website that the legal team was looking forward to fighting for a victory.
“All of this is extremely important for a couple months down the road where we’re going to get to have this fight again,” he adds. “But the immediate impact is very unlikely to be determinative in the primary.”
And if Trump — with his consistently steady lead in GOP polls — does win the primary, Levitt expects there will be a similar legal effort to keep him off the general election ballot for the same reason.
President Biden said Wednesday that Trump supported an insurrection, but added that the court will make the decision regarding the 14th Amendment.
Trump has vowed to appeal the “completely flawed” decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Steven Cheung said they have full confidence that the US Supreme Court will rule in our favor and end these un-American lawsuits.
The district court decision which the landmark 4-3 ruling overturns is the first instance of a high court in a state finding that Section 3 applies to both Trump’s conduct and the presidency itself.
Legal scholars and activists argue that Donald Trump shouldn’t be allowed to hold office again because of a Civil War-era constitutional clause.
They argue that Trump’s actions around the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of his supporters swarmed the Capitol building in an attempt to prevent Congress from formalizing Joe Biden’s presidential election victory, constituted an insurrection.
Roe v. Wade and the Ethics of Proposed Proposed Measures for Prescription Abortion with Prescriptions by the Secretary of State
“Because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Secretary to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot,” reads the 213-page opinion.
Patients can get prescriptions from the FDA through tele- or mail-in appointments. The most popular abortion method is medication abortions.
Abortion rights have already become a motivating issue for voters and a major topic on the campaign trail, sparked largely by the court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in June 2022. That’s not the last word the court will have on abortion, either.
“We do not reach these conclusions lightly,” the court majority wrote. The questions are large and have a heavy weight to them. 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.”
The Case of John A. Castro: The New State Supreme Court Decision to Obstruct the Capitol Building Procedure Under the 14th Amendment
John Anthony Castro, an accountant and longshot Republican presidential candidate, has brought lawsuits in nine states to block Donald Trump from being on the ballot under the 14th Amendment. Castro’s case was not heard by the Supreme Court in October. Afterward, judges in three states dismissed his lawsuits, and Castro voluntarily withdrew his cases in several others.
The law used in the D.C. federal case against Trump forms the basis of two charges against him for Capitol rioting and other crimes, that raises questions about the impact the court might have on other cases.
Last week, the Supreme Court decided to review the case of Joseph Fischer, a former police officer who was charged with obstructing an official proceeding at the Capitol building. Fischer says the Justice Department overreached when it charged him under a corporate fraud statute usually reserved for people who tamper with documents and evidence.
Less than a year away from the 2024 presidential election, one thing is now clear: The Supreme Court is poised to play a pivotal — if not decisive — role.
“The 2024 election is going to be hard enough as it is. So the sooner we know what the fundamental rules are the better off we are going to be,” he said.
No matter how the justices proceed, it is “critical for the court to resolve this as soon as it possibly can,” said Guy-Uriel Charles, a Harvard law professor who specializes in election law.
We have a definitive state supreme court ruling on those questions for the first time. And we think it’s applicable to these other states,” Bonifaz said.
He said that the lawsuits had the same questions, like whether the 14th Amendment applies to the president and whether courts can enforce it.
The Colorado senate case against a class of “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States and “the 14th Amendment”
John Bonifaz, an attorney and the co-founder and president of Free Speech For People, said the Colorado decision would have a big impact on other challenges.
There are two notable suits happening in Oregon and Michigan. The supreme courts are considering Free Speech For People’s cases. In Minnesota, the group’s challenge was dismissed because the court said political parties have the right to put ineligible candidates on the ballot. The group will file additional challenges in the future.
Other states may not have the same conditions for legal success as Colorado, he said. “It depends on things such as the state law and what relief voters can see in the courts, the jurisdictional authority courts and the secretary of state,” Sherman said.
Donald Sherman, the group’s executive vice president and chief counsel, said that the Colorado case was brought at the right time to prevail on the merits.
The lawsuits, filed by a variety of plaintiffs and legal groups, all focus on a little-used clause of the 14th Amendment that dates back to the Civil War era, and disqualifies from office anyone who engaged in “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States.