October 30, 2023
Does the 14th Amendment prevent former President Donald Trump from being put on the ballot in 2024?
Well – a state court judge in Colorado is deciding that this week. In modern history — we’ve never seen anything like this and it’s very likely this case could end up in front of the US Supreme Court.
Now – I’m getting ahead of myself here and I am warning you there is a ton of information in this video, so I highly encourage you to watch the whole thing before you comment because at the end, I am going through the questions the judge in this case is weighing and they’re important.
Let me explain first what’s going on.
Last month the watchdog group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington along with six Colorado voters – who just so happen to either be Republicans or former Republicans or no party preference voters in Colorado filed this 115-page lawsuit arguing section three of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution makes Donald Trump ineligible to hold office again. That’s the so called “disqualification clause” that talks about insurrection.
Let me read to you section three of the 14th Amendment and it’s important for me to read the whole thing – you’ll see why in a second. It says “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.”
Ok. First – you have to understand why this clause is in the Constitution in the first place. See the 14th Amendment was ratified in July of 1868 and it includes most significantly, the right to citizenship to all persons “born or naturalized in the United States.” At the time –that included enslaved people and today, we talk a lot about it when it comes to immigration. But what’s important about 14th Amendment in the context of this court case is – this Amendment was ratified after the civil war and was meant to prohibit the US from repaying the war debt of confederate states or compensating former slave owners for emancipating their enslaved people and they made sure it also disqualified any former “confederate civil or military office holders” from holding state or federal office again. It was important that these people who took up arms against the United States never got back into power.
Now that you understand that – you can see the parallels this group is trying to draw between Section 3 and the former President. Their lawsuit – which includes pictures — argues he took the oath of office on January 20th 2017 and then on January 6th 2021 he broke that oath by “recruiting, inciting and encouraging a violent mob that attacked the capitol in a futile attempt to remain in office.” The suit goes on to say after January 6th, Trump “publicly affirmed his disloyalty to the constitution and his allegiance to the insurrectionists” by calling them “patriots and vowed to give many full pardons with an apology if he is president again”. The plaintiffs are trying to prove the former President took the oath, broke the oath, incited the insurrection or rebellion and then gave aid or comfort to the enemies.
The former President’s legal team has tried to get this case thrown out, but so far all those attempts have failed. Their argument is — only Congress can enforce constitutional qualifications of the presidency not the states and denying Trump a spot on the ballot would be anti-democratic. And of course, they argue the former President never called for violence on January 6th and that engaging in an insurrection requires more than “mere incitement through words”
There’s a lot in there and the state judge in this case will have to sort out a lot of things. Mostly because – Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is what I like to call specifically vague. There’s a lot of words…but not a lot of direction or guidance in there.
So the judge has said she will have decide whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment applies to Presidents if we look at the actual 14th Amendment again – when it lists the office holders, President does not appear – however the words ‘hold any office civil or military under the United States” does appear. But does that mean President?
The judge says she’s also going to look at the phrase “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same” to determine what exactly does that means and whether Trump’s actions fit those definitions of insurrection or rebellion. And as an offshoot to that, the judge will also have to determine if what happened on January 6th meets the legal definition of insurrection.
And she’s also going to have to look at whether the 14th Amendment is self executing – meaning can someone be disqualified from holding office using the 14th Amendment without specific action by the United States Congress. For example, do Secretaries of States, or state legislatures or Governors have the power to remove candidates using the 14th Amendment since the Constitution specifically gives the power to conduct elections to the states.
But Colorado isn’t the only state with a similar lawsuit trying to use the 14th Amendment to get Trump thrown off the ballot. There are several others cases pending in Minnesota, New Hampshire, Michigan and they’re also looking into it in California.
Read the lawsuit here.
Read the document released by the judge here.
