Here s how 2 sentences in the Constitution rose

Here's how 2 sentences in the Constitution rose from obscurity to ensnare Donald Trump
Story by By NICHOLAS RICCARDI, Associated Press •
02/05/24

Fullscreen button
FILE - Trump supporters participate in a rally in Washington, Jan. 6, 2021, that some blame for fueling the attack on the U.S. Capitol. On Thursday, Feb. 8, the nation's highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case involving Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office. The case arises from a decision in Colorado, where that state's Supreme Court ruled that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)
FILE - Trump supporters participate in a rally in Washington, Jan. 6, 2021, that some blame for fueling the attack on the U.S. Capitol. On Thursday, Feb. 8, the nation's highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case involving Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office. The case arises from a decision in Colorado, where that state's Supreme Court ruled that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)
© Provided by The Associated Press
DENVER (AP) — In the summer of 2020, Gerard Magliocca, like many during the coronavirus pandemic, found himself stuck inside with time on his hands.

A law professor at Indiana University, Magliocca emailed with another professor, who was writing a book about overlooked parts of the Constitution's 14th Amendment. He decided he would research the history of two long-neglected sentences in the post-Civil War addition that prohibit those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office.

Fullscreen button
FILE - Former President Donald Trump speaks outside the New York Supreme Court, Jan. 11, 2024, in New York. The case that brings Trump to the U.S. Supreme Court to preserve his right to run again for the presidency began during the summer of 2020, when a bored law professor in Indiana began to research the history of two rarely noticed sentences tucked in the middle of the 14th Amendment. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig, File)
FILE - Former President Donald Trump speaks outside the New York Supreme Court, Jan. 11, 2024, in New York. The case that brings Trump to the U.S. Supreme Court to preserve his right to run again for the presidency began during the summer of 2020, when a bored law professor in Indiana began to research the history of two rarely noticed sentences tucked in the middle of the 14th Amendment. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig, File)
© Provided by The Associated Press
Magliocca posted a copy of his research — which he believed was the first law journal article ever written about Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — online in mid-December of 2020, then revised and re-posted it on Dec. 29. Eight days later, President Donald Trump's supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol to prevent the certification of his loss to Joe Biden. Magliocca watched as Republicans such as Sens. Mitch McConnell and Mitt Romney described the attack as an “insurrection.”
Fullscreen button
FILE - Attorney Scott Gessler speaks during a hearing before the Colorado Supreme Court for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the state ballot, on Dec. 6, 2023, in Denver. On Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024, the nation's highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case that arises from the state Supreme Court's decision that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and should be banned from ballot.(AP Photo/David Zalubowski, Pool, File)
FILE - Attorney Scott Gessler speaks during a hearing before the Colorado Supreme Court for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the state ballot, on Dec. 6, 2023, in Denver. On Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024, the nation's highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case that arises from the state Supreme Court's decision that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and should be banned from ballot.(AP Photo/David Zalubowski, Pool, File)
© Provided by The Associated Press
That night, Magliocca composed a quick post on a legal blog: “Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment,” he wrote, “might apply to President Trump.”

Just over four years later, the U.S. Supreme Court will have to determine whether it does. On Thursday, the nation's highest court is scheduled to hear arguments over whether Trump can remain on the ballot in Colorado, where the state's Supreme Court ruled that he violated Section 3.


It's the first time in history that the nation's highest court has heard a case on Section 3, which was used to keep former Confederates from holding government offices after the amendment's 1868 adoption. It fell into disuse after Congress granted an amnesty to most ex-rebels in 1872.

Before the violent Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, even many constitutional lawyers rarely thought about Section 3, a provision that isn't taught at most law schools and hadn't been used in court for more than 100 years. Legal scholars believe the only time it was cited in the 20th century was to deny a seat in Congress to a socialist on the grounds that he opposed U.S. involvement in World War I.

Fullscreen button
FILE - Then-President Donald Trump speaks during a rally protesting the Elector College certification of Joe Biden's win in the 2020 presidential race, in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021. On Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024, the nation's highest court is scheduled to hear arguments for a case involving Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, prohibiting those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office. The case arises from a decision in Colorado, where that state's Supreme Court ruled that Trump violated Section 3 and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File)
FILE - Then-President Donald Trump speaks during a rally protesting the Elector College certification of Joe Biden's win in the 2020 presidential race, in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021. On Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024, the nation's highest court is scheduled to hear arguments for a case involving Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, prohibiting those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office. The case arises from a decision in Colorado, where that state's Supreme Court ruled that Trump violated Section 3 and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File)
© Provided by The Associated Press
The clause's revival is due to an unlikely combination of Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, all rediscovering 111 words in the nation's foundational legal document that have now become a threat to the former president's attempt to return to office.

THE FIRST TARGETS
Once she had dried her tears after watching rioters storm the Capitol, Norma Anderson sat down with one of the multiple copies of the Constitution she keeps around her house in the Denver suburbs and reread the 14th Amendment.

Fullscreen button
FILE - Trump supporters participate in a rally in Washington, Jan. 6, 2021, that some blame for fueling the attack on the U.S. Capitol. On Thursday, Feb. 8, the nation's highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case involving Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office. The case arises from a decision in Colorado, where that state's Supreme Court ruled that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)
FILE - Trump supporters participate in a rally in Washington, Jan. 6, 2021, that some blame for fueling the attack on the U.S. Capitol. On Thursday, Feb. 8, the nation's highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case involving Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office. The case arises from a decision in Colorado, where that state's Supreme Court ruled that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)
© Provided by The Associated Press
“I made the connection,” Anderson, now 91, said in an interview.

Anderson is a former Republican leader of Colorado's General Assembly and state Senate, and eventually would become the lead plaintiff in the case now before the Supreme Court. The evening of Jan. 6, she read the provision that prohibited anyone who swore an oath to “support” the Constitution and later “engaged in insurrection” against it, or provided “aid and comfort” to its enemies, from holding office.


Good Pupils
Anderson didn't yet have the chance to spread the word beyond her own circle, but in the days after Jan. 6, thanks to scholars such as Magliocca and the University of Maryland law professor whose book project had inspired him, Mark Graber, Section 3 started its slow emergence from obscurity.

Fullscreen button
FILE - Attorney Eric Olson, far right, argues before the Colorado Supreme Court for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the state ballot on Dec. 6, 2023, in Denver. On Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024, the nation's highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case that arises from the state Supreme Court's decision that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski, Pool, File)
FILE - Attorney Eric Olson, far right, argues before the Colorado Supreme Court for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the state ballot on Dec. 6, 2023, in Denver. On Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024, the nation's highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case that arises from the state Supreme Court's decision that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski, Pool, File)
© Provided by The Associated Press
“We were the two people doing a little work on Section 3,” Graber said of Magliocca and himself. “We thought this is real interesting; it makes great chitchat at the American Legal Historians Society.” He added, “Then Donald Trump did academics a favor.”

Fullscreen button
FILE - Attorney Martha Tierney smiles during a hearing for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the Colorado ballot in court Oct. 30, 2023, in Denver. On Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024, the nation's highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case that arises from the state Supreme Court's decision that Trump violated Section 3 and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/Jack Dempsey, Pool, File)
FILE - Attorney Martha Tierney smiles during a hearing for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the Colorado ballot in court Oct. 30, 2023, in Denver. On Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024, the nation's highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case that arises from the state Supreme Court's decision that Trump violated Section 3 and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/Jack Dempsey, Pool, File)
© Provided by The Associated Press
Though the provision was occasionally mentioned, conversation in Washington and the legal profession in general remained dominated by Trump's second impeachment — where he was acquitted by the Senate after 43 Republicans voted not to convict him.

It took months before the first mention of Section 3 in a public document. Free Speech For People, a Massachusetts-based liberal nonprofit, sent letters to top election officials in all 50 states in June 2021, warning them not to place Trump on the ballot should he run again in 2024 because he had violated the provision.

Fullscreen button
FILE - Sean Grimsley, attorney for the petitioners, delivers closing arguments during a hearing for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the Colorado ballot in district court, Nov. 15, 2023, in Denver. On Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024, the nation's highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case that arises from the state Supreme Court's decision that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/Jack Dempsey, Pool, File)
FILE - Sean Grimsley, attorney for the petitioners, delivers closing arguments during a hearing for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the Colorado ballot in district court, Nov. 15, 2023, in Denver. On Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024, the nation's highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case that arises from the state Supreme Court's decision that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/Jack Dempsey, Pool, File)
© Provided by The Associated Press
The group didn't hear back from any of them.

“People were just treating it as something that was not serious,” recalled John Bonifaz, the group's co-founder.

Fullscreen button
FILE - Trump supporters participate in a rally in Washington, Jan. 6, 2021, that some blame for fueling the attack on the U.S. Capitol. On Thursday, Feb. 8, the nation's highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case involving Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office. The case arises from a decision in Colorado, where that state's Supreme Court ruled that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)
FILE - Trump supporters participate in a rally in Washington, Jan. 6, 2021, that some blame for fueling the attack on the U.S. Capitol. On Thursday, Feb. 8, the nation's highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case involving Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office. The case arises from a decision in Colorado, where that state's Supreme Court ruled that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)
© Provided by The Associated Press
In January 2022, Free Speech For People filed a complaint in North Carolina to disqualify Republican Rep. Madison Cawthorn under Section 3 for his involvement in the rally that preceded the Capitol attack. But Cawthorn lost his primary in that year's midterms, mooting the case.

At the same time, another liberal watchdog group was starting its own Section 3 campaign.

Fullscreen button
FILE - Gerard Magliocca, a professor at Indiana University's Robert H. McKinney School of Law, testifies during a hearing for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the Colorado ballot, Nov. 1, 2023, in Denver. During the coronavirus pandemic, Magliocca began to research the history of two rarely noticed sentences tucked in the middle of the 14th Amendment. (AP Photo/Jack Dempsey, Pool, File)
FILE - Gerard Magliocca, a professor at Indiana University's Robert H. McKinney School of Law, testifies during a hearing for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the Colorado ballot, Nov. 1, 2023, in Denver. During the coronavirus pandemic, Magliocca began to research the history of two rarely noticed sentences tucked in the middle of the 14th Amendment. (AP Photo/Jack Dempsey, Pool, File)
© Provided by The Associated Press
After Jan. 6, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, also known as CREW, in Washington was focused on Trump's impeachment and other possible legal penalties against those who participated in the Capitol attack before exploring other remedies, said its chief counsel, Donald Sherman.

By January 2022, the group decided to test Section 3 in court.

Fullscreen button
FILE - Gerard Magliocca, a professor at Indiana University's Robert H. McKinney School of Law, testifies during a hearing for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the Colorado ballot, Nov. 1, 2023, in Denver. During the coronavirus pandemic, Magliocca began to research the history of two rarely noticed sentences tucked in the middle of the 14th Amendment. (AP Photo/Jack Dempsey, Pool, File)
FILE - Gerard Magliocca, a professor at Indiana University's Robert H. McKinney School of Law, testifies during a hearing for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the Colorado ballot, Nov. 1, 2023, in Denver. During the coronavirus pandemic, Magliocca began to research the history of two rarely noticed sentences tucked in the middle of the 14th Amendment. (AP Photo/Jack Dempsey, Pool, File)
© Provided by The Associated Press
“It wasn't just Trump we were focused on,” Sherman said in an interview. “One thing we've been very careful about is we don't think it's appropriate to pursue outside or longshot cases.”

Looking for a lower-level defendant, Sherman's organization zeroed in on Couy Griffin. The subject of one of the earliest Jan. 6 prosecutions, Griffin already has a rich legal record. He was was recorded in a restricted area of the U.S. Capitol as head of a group called Cowboys for Trump. Griffin was convicted of illegally entering the Capitol, but acquitted of engaging in disorderly conduct.

He still served as a commissioner in a rural New Mexico county, which kept CREW's attention on him. On Sept. 6, 2022, a New Mexico judge ordered Griffin removed from his position. It was the first time in more than 100 years an official had been removed under Section 3. Griffin has appealed to the Supreme Court.


The Associated Press
Can Trump be on the ballot? It's the Supreme Court's biggest election test since Bush v. Gore
CREW prepared to turn to other Section 3 targets. But it quickly became clear Trump would be next. He announced his campaign for president on Nov. 15, 2022.

‘IS THIS FOR REAL?’
Both Free Speech For People and CREW had similar discussions about how to challenge a presidential candidacy. They knew the complaints would have to come at the state level because federal courts have ruled that citizens can't challenge presidential criteria in that venue.

The two groups began scouring state ballot laws, looking for a place that allowed the rapid contesting of a candidacy. CREW settled on Colorado. It had a clear process for a quick challenge in trial court that would be fast-tracked on appeal to the state Supreme Court.

After a brief trip to Denver checking on potential local lawyers to lead the challenge, Sherman and another CREW attorney, Nikhel Sus, contracted Martha Tierney, a veteran election lawyer who also served as general counsel of the state Democratic Party.

“Hmm, that's a longshot,” Tierney recalled thinking. She signed up, anyway.

Tierney wasn't acting as the Democratic Party's lawyer, but CREW wanted to balance its team with someone from the right. Sherman reached out to Mario Nicolais, a former Republican election lawyer who had left the party over Trump.

Nicolais' first interaction with Sherman was a direct message about the case on X, the social media network previously known as Twitter. Nicolais thought it could be from a crank.

“Is this for real or is this from somebody just angry at the president?” Nicolais recalled wondering.

Then he saw Sherman was with CREW. — an organization he considered serious. In Nicolais' office hangs a copy of his first appearance on the front page of The Denver Post, when he beat CREW's local chapter in a case before the Colorado Supreme Court.

Nicolais was in charge of recruiting plaintiffs. The attorneys wanted Republicans and independents, not only because they were eligible to vote in Colorado's Republican primary but also to keep the case from being seen as partisan. Anderson, the former state lawmaker, signed on right away.

On Sept. 6, 2023 — one year from the disqualification of the New Mexico county commissioner — Anderson's was the lead name of the six plaintiffs on the 105-page complaint filed in district court in Denver.

A HISTORIC RULING
Scott Gessler got the call from Trump's team that day. A former Colorado secretary of state, Gessler was one of the go-to Republican election lawyers in the state.

Trump's campaign had been fending off scores of Section 3 lawsuits across the country, often from fringe players such as John Castro, a write-in Republican presidential candidate from Texas who had filed numerous ones against Trump.

This case was more serious. The Denver judge who got CREW's complaint, Sarah Block Wallace, said she was obligated to hold a hearing under Colorado election law.

In the five-day hearing, which took place in late October and early November, two officers who defended the Capitol testified, along with a University of California professor who was an expert in right-wing extremism, two Trump aides and several other witnesses. One was Magliocca, who laid out the history of Section 3.

Trump's attorneys were pessimistic, expecting Wallace, who had a history of donating to Democrats, to rule against them. Trump's top spokesman, Jason Miller, addressed reporters outside court, complaining that the plaintiffs had intentionally filed in a liberal jurisdiction in a blue state.

Trump's lawyers filed a motion asking Wallace step aside because before becoming a judge, she had made a $100 donation to a liberal group that had declared Jan. 6 was an “insurrection.” She declined.

“I will not allow this legal proceeding to turn into a circus,” Wallace said as the hearing began.

Testimony was occasionally interrupted by sirens from a fire station around the corner from Wallace's courtroom. Security was an ever-present concern. About a half-dozen sheriff’s deputies stood guard throughout the trial, and the plaintiffs had reached out to the FBI and other law enforcement agencies.

To handle much of the examination and argument, Tierney and Nicolais had brought on a new firm of trial lawyers, whose lead partner was former Colorado Solicitor General Eric Olson.

Wallace issued her decision on Nov. 17. She ruled that Trump had “engaged in insurrection” but found that — contrary to Magliocca's testimony — it wasn't certain that the authors of the 14th Amendment meant it to apply to the president. Section 3 refers to “elector of President and Vice President,” but not specifically to the office itself.

Wallace was hesitant to become the first judge in history to bar a top presidential contender from the ballot unless the law was crystal clear.

“It was a loss that only a lawyer could love,” Sus recalled.

CREW was just a legal sliver away from victory — it just needed the Colorado Supreme Court to uphold all of Wallace's ruling besides the technicality of whether the president was covered.

A COURT DIVIDED
The seven justices of the state's high court — all appointed by Democrats from a pool chosen by a nonpartisan panel — peppered both sides with pointed questions at oral argument three weeks later.

Olson and another partner from his firm, Jason Murray, argued for the plaintiffs. Murray had the rare distinction of having clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, a member of the court's liberal bloc, and Justice Neil Gorsuch, a member of its conservative bloc.

Gessler handled the argument for Trump. At the end of the grueling session, he addressed the meaning of insurrection and summed up the unprecedented, improvised nature of the case.

“You’re going to tell me, ‘Mr. Gessler, you’re making it up,’” Gessler told the justices. “I’m going to tell you, well, so did the judge. And at the end of the day, we all are to a certain extent.”

Neither side left feeling certain of victory.

On Dec. 19, the court announced it would issue its ruling that afternoon. Sean Grimsley, one of Olson's law partners who also had argued the case, was in Washington, at the memorial service for former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, for whom he had clerked.

The ruling, which was 4-3, came down while Grimsley was on the flight back, frantically checking his phone via the plane's wi-fi. They had won. Grimsley leapt from his seat and dashed back several rows, where he high-fived a fellow O'Connor clerk who was on the flight.

Eight days later, Maine's Democratic secretary of state barred Trump from that state's ballot under Section 3. That decision and Colorado's are on hold until the U.S. Supreme Court rules.

The reaction to Colorado and Maine's decisions has been furious, especially from Republicans. Trump has decried them as “election interference” and “anti-democratic.” They have warned that, if they stand, they could open the door to challenges of other politicians under Section 3, including Biden for not sufficiently defending the nation's southern border.

Sherman, who chafes at the notion that his nonpartisan group works on Democrats' behalf, notes that several Republican lawyers, former judges, members of Congress and governors have filed briefs with the Supreme Court backing them. In contrast, Sherman said he has heard grumbling from Democrats that the case risks replacing Trump with a Republican who would be harder to beat in this year's election.

Free Speech For People has filed Section 3 cases against Trump in five states. None has succeeded, with every legal entity ruling that it doesn't have the authority to decide whether to remove Trump from the ballot. The Minnesota Supreme Court, for example, kept Trump on that state's ballot by ruling that state law allows political parties to put whomever they want on their primary ballot.

With most jurisdictions dodging the questions at the heart of the case, it can create a misleading impression that things have gone well for the former president.

“The cases have gone poorly for Trump,” Derek Muller, a Notre Dame law professor who has followed the cases closely, wrote Friday in a blog post. “He lost on the merits in the only two jurisdictions that got to the merits, Colorado and Maine.”

Next up is the one that matters most.

***
Opinion: The Supreme Court’s Trump ruling could be the beginning of the end for our democracy
Opinion by William S. Becker, opinion contributor • 02/05/24
Fullscreen button
Opinion: The Supreme Court’s Trump ruling could be the beginning of the end for our democracy 
Opinion: The Supreme Court’s Trump ruling could be the beginning of the end for our democracy 
© Provided by The Hill
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this week on whether states can keep Donald Trump from appearing on primary election ballots for president based on the U.S. Constitution’s insurrection clause. More seriously, it could decide that Trump is ineligible to be president again even if he wins the November election.


We should hope for two outcomes: First, that the court does not use technicalities and procedural issues to evade a clear decision; and second, that it allows common sense and the fate of democracy to loom large in its decision.

The case before the court is an appeal of a December ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court. It found, “President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President (and) because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Secretary to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot.”
The basis of its decision is Section 3 of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, the so-called Disqualification Clause. It says public officials cannot hold office in government if they take oaths of loyalty to the Constitution and later participate in an insurrection. The Colorado Court affirmed that the riots on January 6, 2021, were an insurrection, and that Trump acted “overtly and voluntarily with the intent of aiding or furthering” it.

Related video: US Supreme Court verdict may end Trump's efforts in Colorado and Maine | US Elections 2024 (WION)
Continuing with updates from the US,
WION
US Supreme Court verdict may end Trump's efforts in Colorado and Maine | US Elections 2024
Since Congress added the Disqualification Clause to the Constitution in the 1800s, courts have rarely addressed it. This leaves a variety of issues for the current justices to consider, as well as opportunities to avoid a politically volatile ruling on technical or procedural grounds. Instead, they should rule definitively to clarify the clause because Trump has created a political precedent in which we may see future attempts to overthrow the Constitution.

What are some of the key questions before the court?

1. Does the clause apply to presidents? It doesn’t mention them specifically. This question came up when Congress debated the language in 1866. Maryland Sen. Reverdy Johnson asked why it didn’t mention the offices of president and vice president. Sen. Lot Morrill of Maine explained both offices were covered by the provision that “no person shall…hold any office under the United States” if they took an oath to support the Constitution, then violated it by participating in an insurrection. This exchange provides an insight into congressional intent.


2. Was the riot on January 6, 2021, an insurrection? Three contemporary courts have ruled it was: district courts in New Mexico and Colorado and the Colorado Supreme Court. The House January 6th Committee report refers to that day’s events as an insurrection 78 times. Several other congressional documents do the same.

3. Did Trump participate? The Disqualification Clause applies not only to direct participation in insurrection but also to giving “aid or comfort” to insurrectionists. The previously mentioned courts ruled Trump did so by inciting violence on January 6, and the House impeached Trump for “incitement of insurrection.”

4. Shouldn’t it be up to voters whether Trump can be president again? The 14th Amendment states a qualification to serve as president, like the Constitution’s other requirements that a president must be a natural-born citizen of the U.S. and at least 35 years old. The Constitution’s qualifications are not subject to voter discretion.

5. Has Trump been denied due process? No. The Colorado District Court held a five-day trial in which the judge heard multiple motions by Trump’s attorneys and testimony from witnesses on Trump’s behalf.

6. What about Trump’s argument that he never swore to “support” the Constitution? Trump argues that although the 14th Amendment uses the word “support,” the presidential oath uses the words “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.” Preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution are synonymous with supporting it.

The implications of this case go deeper than Trump’s eligibility to hold office. The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether a solemn oath means anything in the United States today. The Constitution thinks it should. It not only requires each president-elect to swear fidelity to the Constitution, it requires the same by members of Congress, state legislators and “all executive and judicial officers both of the United States and several States.”

Trump swore allegiance to the Constitution “under God” with his hand on the Bible. Yet he has signaled his willingness to defy it if he becomes president again. For example, he has said his Big Lie about the 2020 election “allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” and he has threatened to unilaterally end constitutionally guaranteed birthright citizenship.

In November, news outlets reported Trump and his allies were “mapping out specific plans for using the federal government to punish critics and opponents” and to deploy the U.S. military to squash civil demonstrations. Critics called these plans “dangerous and unconstitutional.”

Trump has been called “the most anti-democratic president in American history,” based on his first-term record. He has “done more to undermine American democracy than any chief executive in the modern era,” according to analysis of representative democracies worldwide. They have rated America’s democracy as flawed since 2016, when Trump was elected president.

Experts at the Brookings Institution explain that democracies usually break down gradually into authoritarian rule. The process is “dangerously deceptive.” People still vote, but legislatures and courts rule that efforts to subvert democracy are legal.

That’s exactly what’s happening in the United States today. 

State legislatures have passed 100 laws to suppress voting since 2013, when the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act. Trump continues to undermine public confidence in elections (Over a third of adults still believe Joe Biden lost in 2020.) And Trump’s control of Republicans in Congress has prevented the legislative branch from its duty to “check and balance” presidential abuses of power (Republicans twice prevented Trump’s impeachment for high crimes, and 126 current Republicans in Congress voted against certifying Biden’s victory in 2021).

Now, as a result of Trump’s four criminal indictments, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority faces several tests of whether its loyalty lies with him or our constitutional democracy.

It is not a given that the justices will rule in his favor; the conservative majority has defied Trump several times in recent years. Typical of their client, Trump’s attorneys have warned the justices that decisions by other states to exclude Trump from their ballots would “unleash chaos and bedlam.” Republicans in Congress told the court an “unfortunate parade of horribles” would ensue if they rule against Trump this time.

It’s unclear whether they are predicting political or civil trouble. But Trump, who talks about how he’d use the Insurrection Act to put down rebellion, is fully aware of the current president’s options if “chaos and bedlam” rise to the level of another insurrection.

William S. Becker;is co-editor of and a contributor to “Democracy Unchained: How to Rebuild Government for the People,”;and contributor to Democracy in a Hotter Time, named by the journal Nature as one of 2023’s five best science books. He is executive director of the Presidential Climate Action Project (PCAP), a nonpartisan climate policy think tank unaffiliated with the White House.

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.


***
'Bloody unraveling': Experts fear fallout of SCOTUS Trump ballot ruling
Story by Brad Reed •
02/05/24

Fullscreen button
Shutterstock.com
Shutterstock.com
© provided by RawStory
Agroup of experts who spoke with Politico expressed fear that the Supreme Court's decision on whether former President Donald Trump should remain on the ballot will inspire more political violence.

Rachel Kleinfeld, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told the publication that she didn't expect the kind of mass violence seen at the January 6th Capitol riots, but she said that we should expect isolated violence to erupt across the country.

History Pockets: The American Civil War Book, Teacher Resource, Gra...
History Pockets: The American Civil War Book, Teacher Resource, Gra...
Ad
Good Pupils
"Violence is likely no matter what happens," she argued. "If the Supreme Court doesn’t disqualify Trump and he continues his campaign, his speech and campaign style will probably generate so many violent incidents... Should Trump lose the election, his disbelieving supporters are likely to engage in major violence. While Trump’s ability to draw out large crowds now has been dented by fear of false flags, DOJ’s beheading of the Oath Keepers and other factors, his capacity will likely return after months of campaigning."
Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.

READ MORE: This Capitol Police officer has a new mission

Richard L. Hasen, a professor of law and political science at UCLA, expressed a similar fear.

"My greatest concern of a ruling disqualifying is not therefore about a hit to the court’s legitimacy, but the potential for violence... especially given Trump’s track record in encouraging violence when he doesn’t get his way, which is what got us to this point in the first place," he said.

Related video: How the Supreme Court can avoid falling into Trump’s trap in ballot eligibility appeal (MSNBC)
This week, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in
MSNBC
How the Supreme Court can avoid falling into Trump’s trap in ballot eligibility appeal
And Aziz Huq, a law professor at the University of Chicago, said that barring Trump from the ballot was the right decision legally, but he said that the consequences of such a decision would likely be horrific.

"I suspect that a Supreme Court ruling disqualifying him from office would elevate the violent rhetoric and acts of some," he warned. "A win for the Colorado plaintiffs, in other words, would not be the end; it could instead be the beginning of a further bloody unraveling of democratic norms."

Recommended Links:
;Republicans ‘brought to their knees’ with ‘Trump’s insatiable appetite for violence’: Nicolle Wallace

;'We need to start killing': Some Trump supporters flood social media with demands for violence

;Morning Joe downplays violent talk: 'Stop insulting Trump supporters -- there's rage on both sides'

;Trump told writer he wants fans to take his words of violence to heart and act

;Ex-FBI official warns of unprecedented violence from Trump's 'hardcore' supporters