Colorado Supreme Court Rules Trump Ineligible for President Under 14th Amendment
Dave Pell, writing at NextDraft:
Donald Trump has been kicked out of the mile high club. In a 4-3
decision, the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that Trump is
ineligible to be on the ballot in the state under Section
3 of the 14th Amendment. “The decision from a court whose
justices were all appointed by Democratic governors marks the
first time in history that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has
been used to disqualify a presidential candidate.” For now, the
decision is stayed, giving the Supreme Court time to weigh in on
the matter. […]
Why 14th Amendment bars Trump from office: A constitutional law
scholar explains principle behind Colorado Supreme Court
ruling. In Slate, Lawrence Lessig explains why the 14
Amendment actually doesn’t do that at all: “The Supreme Court
Must Unanimously Strike Down Trump’s Ballot Removal”. Once
you’re done reading the analysis, you might want to shift your
focus to the 21st Amendment, because you’re gonna need a drink.
I dislike the AP’s emphasis on the fact that the justices on Colorado’s supreme court court were all nominated by Democratic governors — it emphasizes partisanship in the branch of government that ought to be least partisan. (After serving an initial term, Colorado supreme court justice must stand for statewide election; the four of them who have served that long have been retained by voters overwhelmingly.) The AP does not use such language when describing the decisions of the United States Supreme Court, of which 6 of 9 justices were nominated by Republican presidents — and who never stand for retention by voters. (This, despite the fact that voters have, in the aggregate popular vote, overwhelmingly favored Democratic candidates for president over the last 30 years. The only Republican candidates to win the popular vote after Reagan were George H.W. Bush in 1988 (7.7% margin) and George W. Bush in 2004 (2.5%).)
The argument that the 14th Amendment bars Trump from running again for federal office — and that it’s self-executing — was first put forth in a paper by two law professors, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, who are members of the very conservative Federalist Society. It’s not some crackpot left-wing plot.
To Pell’s list of reading material, I’ll add George Conway, also writing at The Atlantic:
But last night changed my mind. Not because of anything the
Colorado Supreme Court majority said. The three dissents were
what convinced me the majority was right.
The dissents were gobsmacking — for their weakness. They did not
want for legal craftsmanship, but they did lack any semblance of a
convincing argument.
★
Dave Pell, writing at NextDraft:
Donald Trump has been kicked out of the mile high club. In a 4-3
decision, the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that Trump is
ineligible to be on the ballot in the state under Section
3 of the 14th Amendment. “The decision from a court whose
justices were all appointed by Democratic governors marks the
first time in history that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has
been used to disqualify a presidential candidate.” For now, the
decision is stayed, giving the Supreme Court time to weigh in on
the matter. […]
Why 14th Amendment bars Trump from office: A constitutional law
scholar explains principle behind Colorado Supreme Court
ruling. In Slate, Lawrence Lessig explains why the 14
Amendment actually doesn’t do that at all: “The Supreme Court
Must Unanimously Strike Down Trump’s Ballot Removal”. Once
you’re done reading the analysis, you might want to shift your
focus to the 21st Amendment, because you’re gonna need a drink.
I dislike the AP’s emphasis on the fact that the justices on Colorado’s supreme court court were all nominated by Democratic governors — it emphasizes partisanship in the branch of government that ought to be least partisan. (After serving an initial term, Colorado supreme court justice must stand for statewide election; the four of them who have served that long have been retained by voters overwhelmingly.) The AP does not use such language when describing the decisions of the United States Supreme Court, of which 6 of 9 justices were nominated by Republican presidents — and who never stand for retention by voters. (This, despite the fact that voters have, in the aggregate popular vote, overwhelmingly favored Democratic candidates for president over the last 30 years. The only Republican candidates to win the popular vote after Reagan were George H.W. Bush in 1988 (7.7% margin) and George W. Bush in 2004 (2.5%).)
The argument that the 14th Amendment bars Trump from running again for federal office — and that it’s self-executing — was first put forth in a paper by two law professors, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, who are members of the very conservative Federalist Society. It’s not some crackpot left-wing plot.
To Pell’s list of reading material, I’ll add George Conway, also writing at The Atlantic:
But last night changed my mind. Not because of anything the
Colorado Supreme Court majority said. The three dissents were
what convinced me the majority was right.
The dissents were gobsmacking — for their weakness. They did not
want for legal craftsmanship, but they did lack any semblance of a
convincing argument.