On March 5, the people of Colorado are to vote in a “primary election” to determine which candidates are to compete for the US presidency in November. The question now looming is whether former US president Donald Trump’s name could appear on the Republican Party’s primary ballot.
In a recent decision — variously characterized as a “bombshell,” “explosive” and “a huge moment for democracy” — the Supreme Court of the state of Colorado answered “no.” A four to three majority on the court ruled that Trump’s fate was sealed by Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, which prohibits “insurrectionists” from holding federal or state office.
The court’s decision follows from a lower state court determination that Trump engaged in insurrection in late 2020 and early 2021, by knowingly and intentionally seeking to disrupt the orderly transition of power.
In addition to lying about election fraud, he also incited his followers to disrupt the counting of electoral votes and simultaneously participated in a plan to replace certified state electors with fake pro-Trump slates. The court concluded that these actions amounted to an active rebellion against the US Constitution.
Trump’s behavior places him in the company of past government officials who, in 1860 and 1861, participated in their states’ secession from the Union and ensuing establishment of the Confederate States of America. That effort failed, following a protracted and bloody conflict. The end of the US Civil War (1861-1865) was consummated by a bundle of US Constitutional Amendments that have been referred to as the nation’s “second founding.”
The Thirteenth Amendment, which ended the institution of slavery, the Fifteenth Amendment, which established universal male suffrage and the Fourteenth Amendment, which endowed “all persons” with federal rights of due process and equal protection and, in Section 3, sought to further safeguard democracy by barring insurrectionists from public office, reading: “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… 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.”
While the two Colorado courts agreed that Trump “engaged in insurrection,” their legal analyses diverged. The lower court ruled out disqualifying Trump from participating in the Colorado primary election on the grounds that the term “office” does not apply to the presidency, but the state’s supreme court called this interpretation absurd.
In the court’s view, the plain meaning of the word “office,” based on how it was used at the time the amendment was drafted, undoubtedly included the presidency. Moreover, the higher court stated, what sense would it make for the drafters to disqualify every oath-breaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one? Surely, no one believed that former Confederate States of America president Jefferson Davis, who had previously sworn to uphold the US Constitution as a senator and secretary of war, would be eligible to become US president. The Congressional Record, which documents the debates surrounding the amendment, offers unambiguous support for this view.
The last word on this controversy has yet to be heard. It lies secreted in the hearts and minds of the US Supreme Court, which is soon to rule on the matter. In the meantime, Trump’s name is to remain on the state’s ballot. The Colorado Supreme Court stayed — or postponed — its ruling from taking effect until Thursday next week: the day before the Colorado secretary of state is required to certify the candidates on the state’s presidential primary ballot. The outcome thus depends on what the US Supreme Court decides to do before the stay ends.
There is ample room for the high court — with its hard-right majority — to reverse the Colorado decision. For one thing, it could reject both state courts’ findings of fact regarding Trump’s engagement in insurrection. Typically, however, higher courts tend to defer to lower courts’ fact-finding. After all, reviews on appeal involve a cold record; there is no opportunity to assess a witness’ demeanor or other hints of credibility — or a lack thereof — that live trial testimony offers.
However, other issues remain. For example, the US Supreme Court has never ruled on whether Section 3 is “self-executing,” or requires some enabling legislation by the US Congress before it could be applied. Colorado’s Supreme Court said the states are entitled to interpret their own election laws concerning constitution-based ballot disqualifications without waiting for federal guidelines.
This view finds support in the court’s well-aimed citation of a decision by Justice Neil Gorsuch before he became a member of the US Supreme Court.
However, of course, justices have a history of changing their minds. As to whether the high court would endorse an inclusive or narrow definition of the word “office” remains anyone’s guess.
The US Supreme Court has been called the “least dangerous branch” of the federal government, for it has neither the legislature’s power of the purse nor the presidency’s command of the armed forces. Its sole currency is the public’s willingness to accept the legitimacy of its authority. That currency has been devalued of late, not least by the court’s mounting ethics scandals and shocking reversal of Roe vs Wade, which repudiated longstanding precedent upholding a woman’s right to privacy in choosing whether to continue a pregnancy.
Upon reviewing questions surrounding Trump’s engagement in insurrection and whether Section 3 applies to the president, the Supreme Court has to consider whether, or to what extent, it is willing to gamble on further eroding the public’s support. It is a fraught time for the republic and for a court already freighted with heightened suspicion of conflicts of interest and political capture.
Richard K. Sherwin, professor emeritus of law at New York Law School, is the author of When Law Goes Pop: The Vanishing Line Between Law and Popular Culture.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In an article published on Tuesday in The Atlantic, titled “Will Taiwan Just Give Up?”, journalist Simon Shuster emphasizes the unpredictability of the US as an ally under US President Donald Trump and cites diminishing faith in the US as a contributor to what he sees as waning determination to resist China. As the title suggests, Shuster views a deal between Taiwan and China as an increasingly inevitable alternative to a costly war — one that Taiwan, lacking reliable allies and military capabilities, would eventually be destined to lose. He focuses on Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) — her
Taiwan’s domestic political situation is following recognizable political rhythms, while the international environment surrounding Taiwan is undergoing a major transformation. Within Taiwan, there are ongoing battles between the legislative and executive branches over the budget, and between cities and the central government over resources. Tensions between political parties dominate headlines and consume much of the attention of party leaders. Jockeying is underway for local elections this November and national elections in 2028. And the longstanding philosophical debate inside Taiwan over how best to protect Taiwan and promote the good life remains unresolved. Amidst all of this, Taiwan continues to function well. It
For more than a decade, Beijing has described its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) as a benign program of ports, railways, factories and digital connectivity. That description was never true. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has begun to stage military power behind the commercial geography it has constructed — and its recent air exercise in Egypt is the clearest warning yet. Last month, a Chinese flight of J-16 strike fighters, Y-9LG electronic warfare aircraft, KJ-500 AWACS aircraft, Y-20 transport aircraft, Z-20 utility helicopters and YY-20A in-flight refueling aircraft flew approximately 6,000km to Egypt for the “Eagles of Civilization” exercise with
Taiwan does not need a CIA deputy director to explain that Beijing treats commerce as a battlefield. It has been living that lesson for decades, watching its chip designers get poached, its retired officers get recruited for cash, and its companies get pressured to choose between the Chinese market and their own government’s security priorities. What changed this month is that Washington finally said the quiet part out loud. CIA Deputy Director Michael Ellis told a Washington audience that China’s threat to the US is now “fundamentally different,” because the competition is economic, not military, and that a Chinese company cannot
RSS