“A Republic If You Can Keep It”

In a 4-3 vote on 19 December 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court reached a momentous and far-reaching decision. Citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, they deemed that Donald J. Trump was ineligible to be president again because he engaged in an insurrection on 6 January 2021. This decision raises many perplexing questions that could impact the future of our democratic republic.

The 14th Amendment was enacted in 1868 to solidify the civil rights gained through the Civil War. Primarily, it protects the rights of all Americans by addressing the basic tenets of citizenship in the United States. Perhaps its most cited sections concern birth-right citizenship and equal protection under the law found in Section 1 of the five sections. Section 3 is included to prevent former Confederates from holding state or federal office and reads as follows:

“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.”

The Colorado decision will undoubtedly be appealed by Trump’s lawyers to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), as I believe it should. While current “conservatives” push state’s rights, our system will not function if each state decides for itself what criteria are necessary to run for president. The question is how quickly the SCOTUS will hear the case. The Colorado court stayed its decision until 4 January 2024, unless the case is heard by the SCOTUS before then. The date reflects a 5 January deadline for printing the state’s primary ballot. There is precedent for a quick SCOTUS decision regarding presidential ballots as found in the 5-4 decision in 2000 that effectively handed George W. Bush the presidency in the case Bush v Gore.

Before moving forward with this piece, there are a few things to say up front. I am not an attorney and certainly not an expert on the Constitution. I do, however, have a brain and believe that this section of the amendment is pretty straight forward in its language. I must also add that this case in not the result of far left wing radicals or an attempt by Democrats to derail the Trump campaign. The plaintiffs in the case are five conservative Republicans and an independent voter. The original arguments for applying the 14th Amendment to Trump came from some of the most conservative judges in the country, including members of the Federalist Society. It remains relevant to remember that the ruling disqualifies Trump from the ballot. It does not impose any punishment or result in a conviction for a crime. As is often cited, he is not qualified under the 14th Amendment just as he would not be qualified if he failed to meet the other requirements for the presidency under the Constitution (at least 35 years old, a natural born citizen and lived in the country for at least 14 years).

It would be easy to get down in the weeds and parse every word of Section 3. I am sure some will do exactly that. It seems to me that there are a few salient points that address the issues in larger ways through these main arguments. 

Is the president an “officer of the United States?” Common sense and logic say yes. Why would the Constitution disqualify an insurrectionist from every office requiring an oath to the Constitution, except for the highest office in the land and the one most susceptible to danger from insurrection? The counter argument is that the Constitution often references specific requirements, duties or official actions for office holders. The President and Vice President are not listed in Section 3 by name so therefore they cannot be disqualified for being insurrectionists. This just does not pass the logic test. It does not even pass the Trump logic test. In other court cases he is arguing that he is immune from prosecution as an officer of the government, but here, he claims not to be. 

Another area of dispute involves the boundaries of what exactly constitutes an insurrection. Was the attack on Congress on 6 January an insurrection? And if it was, how is Trump as president responsible for the attack or giving “aid and comfort” to it? To me, the actions Trump took for days and weeks leading up to the attack clearly demonstrate his intent and clear actions to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. The counter argument is that Trump has never been found guilty of engaging “in an insurrection or rebellion,” indeed he has yet even to be indicted for insurrection. Therefore, the argument goes, he cannot be disqualified. The Colorado Supreme Court and the lower court before it, studied the available, exhaustive investigations into the attack and unequivocally declared it to be an insurrection. I am with them.

Some argue that the disqualification would be imposed without due process. Again, I am not an attorney but it seems that Trump had lawyers in the court room presenting the case for his continued eligibility. They presented arguments as to why the Constitution should not apply and provided evidence to support their case. They will have the same opportunity in front of the SCOTUS. What more do they want?

Other arguments against the disqualification include questions concerning whether or not the provisions in this amendment are “self-executing.” In other words, is it a provision that can stand on its own and that can be enforced without any other action or laws required? There are a number of self-executing provisions in the Constitution, especially in the designation of powers of the three branches of government. Partly, this is about what exactly is an insurrection or rebellion. Should it be defined in law with specific consequences clarifying the 14th Amendment?

These are the broad outlines of the legal arguments swirling around the Colorado decision. The real fall out, of course, is political. Many MAGA and Republican luminaries are arguing that Trump’s fitness and qualifications for office should be decided at the ballot box. It is, they shout, un-American to keep the people from voting for the candidate of their choice. When I stop laughing, it might be worth noting that Trump tried, and continues to try, to do exactly that. He still claims he won the 2020 election and worked hard (including an insurrection) to keep the will of the voters from coming to fruition. He already tried to overthrow the government! He tried to prevent the duly elected president from taking office! How can that be any more un-American or anti-democratic? One might argue that disqualifying him from the ballot is actually the most pro-American, pro-democracy act we could imagine. The court system works “without fear or favor!”

(Note: In a future piece I plan to address Trump’s attacks on the judiciary, of which this is one more. The main institution that saved our Republic after the 2020 election was the courts. Trump is now working as hard as he can to disrupt, destroy and de-legitimize our court system. If he succeeds, there will be no guard rails to save our democracy should he prevail in 2024.)

The vast majority of the original citizens impacted by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment were never indicted or tried for insurrection or rebellion. There were no Congressional laws defining how the amendment should be applied. Why must we always bend the system to fit Trump’s desires and demands?

I hope that the Justices decide the case purely on legal and Constitutional grounds while ignoring the crescendo of pro-Trumpers that will put tremendous pressure on them to “stay out of politics.” Screaming “separation of powers” and all of that. I do not see how the SCOTUS can ignore the political and social ramifications of any decision they make. It will be viewed as a political decision, whichever way they go. My guess is that they will decide the issue on a narrow technical aspect of the law and the Constitution. As some suggest, they may hang their hat on the final provision of the section and decide that since the Congress can override a “disability” with a two-thirds vote of each House, then this is really a matter for the Congress to decide and the courts should stay out of it. 

In the end, we will be further down the road of dysfunction and division. 2024 will be wild. Be there.