Trump & Constitutional Amendment 14, Section 3
Should Donald Trump be on the ballot in 2024? Now before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), appealed from the recent 4-3 decision of the Colorado Supreme Court. I'm pretty sure that the Trump-loaded SCOTUS will find some bizarre interpretation of the obvious and allow the 4-time indicted, twice-impeached former President, with 91 criminal charges to run again. I also think it is fascinating that the two leading challengers to Trump's GOP campaign -- Haley & DeSantis -- are both saying that we should let the people decide, rather than following the law. What a new and innovative way to handle high-level legal matters in this country.
Anyway, Constitutional Amendment 14, Section 3 (14-3), couldn't be clearer, and the intent of the Congressional drafters is also clear (discussed in the Colorado decision). We've known about 14-3 and the potential legal chaos it would cause if it wasn't resolved before the 2024 election. I was one of the many people who called for this issue to be addressed and dealt with months and months ago. And, it's clear that a resolution can only be made by a decision of SCOTUS. However, in typical American government fashion, advance planning is rarely on the agenda, and as predicted we are now in the middle of an active Presidential campaign, and a legal nightmare threatening the fabric of our sacred U.S. election process. Had this been resolved before the presidential campaign much of this legal drama could have been avoided.
Following the Civil War, Congress decided that they didn't want persons, who had previously taken an oath to support the Constitution, but who wanted to overthrow the government, shouldn't be able to run for public office. They enacted the 14th Amendment, Section 3 as a new restriction/requirement in order to run for any public office. It all makes perfect sense. Why would you want to allow someone to run for office who took an oath to support the Constitution, but had been active in trying to overthrow the government OR to someone who assisted ("aid or comfort") to those who tried to overthrow the government?
Even though the language and intent seem obvious, the drafters even provided a method to provide relief from the new requirement in case there might be some extreme extenuating circumstances. It had to be an extreme exception; that is why the tough, 2/3rd vote of Congress to exempt it, was required. So Congress could exempt Trump from the requirement and end the entire argument right now.
While it all seems straightforward, the legal beagles, fly-specking the language have come up with two major concerns. (1) is the Presidency really a "civil or military" "office," and, (2) did Trump participate OR provide "aid or comfort" in an "insurrection" even though he has not yet been convicted?
On the first question, it's hard to believe that the drafters would specify "a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold ANY office, civil or military" and not intend to include the President of the United States. Even if you could stretch your legal imagination to conclude that the "presidency" is not a public office; you would also have to determine the "Commander in Chief" is not the highest "office" in the U.S. "military." You would also have to ask yourself, why the drafters wouldn't want a Senator or Representative, etc. OR "an officer of the United States" to run for public office, but it would be fine to run for the presidency.
On the second question, while I don't agree, I would say you can argue legally about whether Trump, "engaged in insurrection or rebellion," since he has not yet been convicted; however, I think it is irrefutable that he provided "aid or comfort to the enemies" of the country. At the Washington DC Ellipse on January 6, 2021, there can be no question that Trump incited & encouraged radicals who have now been convicted & are serving time for seditious conspiracy and have been determined to be enemies of the state. Since then, Trump has continued his "aid or comfort" saying, if elected, he will pardon many of the enemies.
So, bottom line, it's the Constitution, the language and intent seem clear; you have to follow it; amend it; or throw it out! What's the precedent for other sections?
Angry Bear Blog: Trump & Constitutional Amendment 14, Section 3
MSNBC: Judge Luttig: ‘The Supreme Court should affirm this decision’ - Trump removed from Colorado ballot
December 28, 2023 [Update]
Clarification of court decisions on Constitutional Amendment 14, Section 3.
General media reporting, various headlines, and news bites have left the impression that the Michigan & Minnesota Supreme Court decisions are in direct contrast to the Colorado decision. This is not the case. It is important to distinguish between eligibility for the primary election as opposed to the general election.
Below, as explained by Elizabeth M. Welch who wrote a dissent in the
Michigan case, is a summarized legal explanation.
"Significantly, Colorado’s election laws differ from Michigan’s laws in a material way that is directly relevant to why the appellants in this case are not entitled to the relief they seek concerning the presidential primary election in Michigan."
There is "...no analogous provision in the Michigan Election Law that requires someone seeking the office of President of the United States to attest to their legal qualification to hold the office. . . [under Michigan law] the Secretary of State is not legally required to confirm the eligibility of potential presidential primary candidates."
"I would affirm the Court of Appeals’ ruling on this issue, which still allows appellants to renew their legal efforts as to the Michigan general election later in 2024 should Trump become the Republican nominee for President of the United States or seek such office as an independent candidate..." [emphasis added]
CNN also reports that, "The Minnesota Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion last month, finding that an “insurrectionist ban” case involving Trump should be dismissed with regards to the GOP primary, but that the challengers could try again if he wins the nomination."
Thursday, December 28, 2023 [Update]
Maine Secretary of State Decision in Challenge to Trump Presidential Primary Petitions
Secretary of State Shenna Bellows issued the attached decision regarding three challenges brought by Maine voters to the nomination petition of Donald J. Trump, for the Republican primary for the President of the United States.
In the decision, Secretary Bellows said,
“I conclude… that the record establishes that Mr. Trump, over the course of several months and culminating on January 6, 2021, used a false narrative of election fraud to inflame his supporters and direct them to the Capitol to prevent certification of the 2020 election and the peaceful transfer of power. I likewise conclude that Mr. Trump was aware of the likelihood for violence and at least initially supported its use given he both encouraged it with incendiary rhetoric and took no timely action to stop it. . .
“The events of January 6, 2021 were unprecedented and tragic. They were an attack not only upon the Capitol and government officials, but also an attack on the rule of law. The evidence here demonstrates that they occurred at the behest of, and with the knowledge and support of, the outgoing President. The U.S. Constitution does not tolerate an assault on the foundations of our government, and Section 336 requires me to act in response.”
Secretary Bellows has suspended the effect of her decision until the Superior Court rules on any appeal, or the time to appeal has expired.
January 30, 2024 [Update]
MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell program discusses the upcoming February 8, 2024, hearing of SCOTUS on Constitutional Amendment 14-3 (Trump v. Anderson). The focus is on the amicus brief filed by 3 prominent Harvard & Yale history professors who delve into the history behind Section 14-3 and present to the court the historical rationale of the amendment for the court's, so-called originalists, to consider.
March 4, 2024 [Update]
SCOTUS Final Holding: Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the states, responsible for enforcing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against federal officeholders and candidates, the Colorado Supreme Court erred in ordering former President Donald Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot.
