The Constitutional Clause Regarding Insurrection Puts Trump’s Political Aspirations in Jeopardy

The recent bid of ex-President Donald Trump to reclaim the presidency is now imperiled by a provision in the U.S. Constitution, adopted over a century and a half ago.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court of Colorado invoked Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, a rare occurrence, to exclude Trump from the state’s electoral process. This clause disqualifies individuals from office who have pledged to uphold the Constitution but then partook in an insurrection against it. This unprecedented application of the provision to a presidential candidate has shifted the final decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Should the U.S. Supreme Court uphold this decision, which many legal experts view as improbable, it would signify the termination of Trump’s campaign. Such a ruling would be nationally binding, not just confined to Colorado, potentially ushering in a new era of political maneuvering where similar judicial decisions could be sought to disqualify political adversaries.

This clause has also caught the attention of some conservatives contemplating its application to Vice President Kamala Harris, citing her fundraising for individuals arrested during the unrest following George Floyd’s death in Minneapolis, labeling it as an act of insurrection.

Exploring the Ramifications of the 14th Amendment’s Application in Trump’s Case:

The Immediate Impact of the Colorado Ruling:

Presently, the ruling’s real-world impact is minimal. The Colorado Supreme Court, anticipating a likely review by the U.S. Supreme Court, has deferred its order until January 4 or until a Supreme Court decision is made. While currently specific to Colorado, this ruling could inspire other states to similarly exclude Trump from ballots. However, no unilateral actions by state election officials have been reported, and prior lawsuits in this regard have been unsuccessful until this Colorado case.

The U.S. Supreme Court has not previously interpreted Section 3, leaving various potential outcomes for their ruling. Legal scholar Rick Hasen emphasizes the necessity of a clear judicial verdict for U.S. political stability and voter clarity regarding candidate eligibility.

Predicting the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision:

Forecasting the Supreme Court’s decision is speculative, especially given the novel legal territory and the court’s composition, including three Trump-appointed justices. While some conservative legal figures advocate for a strict adherence to the Constitution’s text, potentially disqualifying Trump, the court’s historical reluctance to restrict voter choice complicates predictions.

Understanding Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:

Section 3, aimed initially at barring former Confederates from office, prohibits anyone who has sworn to support the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection from holding various governmental positions. Though widely used post-Civil War, its application dwindled after 1872 amnesty acts, with limited 20th-century usage.

Trump’s Legal Counterarguments:

Trump’s defense challenges his disqualification on several grounds, including the definition of “officer under the United States,” the characterization of the January 6 events, and the jurisdiction of state courts in defining an insurrection. Trump’s team also posits that Congress, not the courts, should decide on such disqualifications.

The Colorado Justices’ Perspectives:

The Colorado Supreme Court majority upheld its jurisdiction in this matter, countering Trump’s arguments by emphasizing the broad applicability of Section 3. However, a dissenting opinion by Justice Carlos Samour highlighted procedural concerns and the need for thorough due process before disqualifying a candidate from office.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Trump constitutional challenge

More about Trump constitutional challenge

• Colorado Supreme Court Bars Trump from Ballot Under 14th Amendment
• 14th Amendment Section 3
• U.S. Supreme Court
• Trump’s Presidential Campaign
• Historical Use of 14th Amendment Section 3
• Legal Arguments in Trump’s Case
• Political Questions and Section 3