The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled by a vote of 4-3 that Donald Trump cannot appear on the Republican primary ballot in that state because he is disqualified under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.<\/p>\n
The relevant part of the 14th Amendment says:<\/p>\n
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector
\nof President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military,
\nunder the United States, or under any State, who, having previously
\ntaken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United
\nStates, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or
\njudicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United
\nStates, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the
\nsame, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress
\nmay by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.<\/p><\/blockquote>\nIt\u2019s a long ruling<\/a> \u2013 134 pages for the majority opinion alone \u2013 and very thorough. It even quotes a ruling by Justice Gorsuch from back when he was a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Of course, it\u2019s only the opinion of one state supreme court out of fifty.<\/p>\n
Even the legal analysts who think the Colorado court is right are pretty sure the U.S. Supreme Court is going to overturn it. And many of them are also arguing that even if the Colorado court is right on the facts and on its interpretation of the Amendment \u2013 and I think they are \u2013 it would still be better to defeat Trump\u2019s authoritarian extremism at the ballot box rather than in the courts.<\/p>\n
They have a point, but I disagree. I don\u2019t think it\u2019s good for the country to allow a vote on its destruction and that is precisely what we get if Trump is allowed to run.\u00a0 Our fundamental democracy should not be put up for a vote.<\/p>\n
We settled this matter by putting down the rebellion in our Civil War that ended in 1865. We passed the 14th amendment after that to make sure that those who were part of an insurrection could not hold political office. We also passed it, along with the 13th and 15th, to change some of the fundamental rules of our country that were adopted in compromise with enslavers when the Constitution was first written.<\/p>\n
We should not have to fight that battle again. The fact that we are struggling with these issues 150 years after the decisive victory over the rebel states in the Civil War is due to our politicians and our courts not following through on either Reconstruction or those three significant amendments that expand the rights of all Americans. <\/p>\n
In The New York Times<\/i>, columnist Jesse Wegman<\/a> answered those who raised questions about the Colorado court\u2019s opinion with these words:<\/p>\n
But all these concerns only amplify an important point: Shouldn\u2019t both major parties insist on presidential candidates for whom such questions are not even remotely at issue?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
I found Wegman’s piece very compelling. Everyone is acting as if the Republicans have no real choice but to nominate that man, but of course, that\u2019s not true.<\/p>\n
As I said, a lot of people disagree with me. Constitutional law professor Steve Vladeck posted a very comprehensive discussion of the issues facing the Supreme Court in his Thursday newsletter<\/a> and suggested this is a situation where the court should engage in \u201chigh Constitutional politics\u201d rather than putting the law first.<\/p>\n
I have a lot of respect for Prof. Vladeck, who holds the chair named after my constitutional law professor at the University of Texas, and his reasoning makes sense. But I think this country has reached a point where we must make it clear that calls for insurrection and authoritarian government are not \u201cjust politics,\u201d but rather an intention to destroy our democracy.<\/p>\n
Of course, as I said earlier, the smart money says the Supreme Court will overturn the Colorado court\u2019s ruling. Prof. Vladeck\u2019s \u201chigh Constitutional politics\u201d might be the best we can get.<\/p>\n