Re possible disqualification of Trump, for European readers. I don't know why this has to be repeated, but it does. Trump should be disqualified because the plain text of the 14th Amendment disqualifies anyone from becoming our President if he engages in insurrection against the United States or provides aid and comfort for those who do. The rule of law means that we must follow the law even when it may appear to be inconvenient, especially in such a consequential case, or it means nothing at all.
The district court in Colorado, which served as the trial court, found in a hearing that Trump engaged in and gave aid and comfort to an insurrection. In America trial courts are responsible for determining the facts of a civil or criminal case. In the US a court of appeals can only clarify the law that applies in a particular case. Therefore the Colorado trial court's finding that Trump engaged in an insurrection is very important, and will be cited by other courts.
Notwithstanding its own finding of fact, the district court left Trump on the ballot because in its twisted interpretation of the 14th Amendment, that Amendment did not apply to presidents, even though that Amendment does disqualify "officers of the United States," who had engaged in insurrection. On the other hand most people would say that the President is in fact the highest officer of the United States.
Fortunately Colorado's state supreme court relied on the fact finding of the trial court and kicked Trump off the Colorado ballot, pending Trump's likely appeal to the US Supreme Court.
I might add that as far as anyone can tell Trump received due process before the Colorado courts. He was represented by counsel. And given that this trial was a civil proceeding whose object was to determine if he was qualified for high office, Trump's liberty was not at stake. The Court needed only to rule on the preponderance of evidence, not to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as it would have had to do in a criminal proceeding. The arguments about the necessity of a "conviction" to kick Trump off the ballot are completely bogus..
No one dares predict what the US Supreme Court will do. While they are bound to respect the facts and record developed by Colorado's trial court, they are free to interpret the Constitution however they wish.
So it all comes down to this. The Supreme Court's conservative majority has long claimed that they are all about respecting the plain text of the Constitution -- they call themselves "textualists" --but they have often conveniently "interpreted" the Constitution so as to further Republican political aims rather than read the Constitution as it would appear to most people.
Let's hope that this time the US Supreme Court holds to the high purpose they claim for themselves.
Re possible disqualification of Trump, for European readers. I don't know why this has to be repeated, but it does. Trump should be disqualified because the plain text of the 14th Amendment disqualifies anyone from becoming our President if he engages in insurrection against the United States or provides aid and comfort for those who do. The rule of law means that we must follow the law even when it may appear to be inconvenient, especially in such a consequential case, or it means nothing at all.
The district court in Colorado, which served as the trial court, found in a hearing that Trump engaged in and gave aid and comfort to an insurrection. In America trial courts are responsible for determining the facts of a civil or criminal case. In the US a court of appeals can only clarify the law that applies in a particular case. Therefore the Colorado trial court's finding that Trump engaged in an insurrection is very important, and will be cited by other courts.
Notwithstanding its own finding of fact, the district court left Trump on the ballot because in its twisted interpretation of the 14th Amendment, that Amendment did not apply to presidents, even though that Amendment does disqualify "officers of the United States," who had engaged in insurrection. On the other hand most people would say that the President is in fact the highest officer of the United States.
Fortunately Colorado's state supreme court relied on the fact finding of the trial court and kicked Trump off the Colorado ballot, pending Trump's likely appeal to the US Supreme Court.
I might add that as far as anyone can tell Trump received due process before the Colorado courts. He was represented by counsel. And given that this trial was a civil proceeding whose object was to determine if he was qualified for high office, Trump's liberty was not at stake. The Court needed only to rule on the preponderance of evidence, not to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as it would have had to do in a criminal proceeding. The arguments about the necessity of a "conviction" to kick Trump off the ballot are completely bogus..
No one dares predict what the US Supreme Court will do. While they are bound to respect the facts and record developed by Colorado's trial court, they are free to interpret the Constitution however they wish.
So it all comes down to this. The Supreme Court's conservative majority has long claimed that they are all about respecting the plain text of the Constitution -- they call themselves "textualists" --but they have often conveniently "interpreted" the Constitution so as to further Republican political aims rather than read the Constitution as it would appear to most people.
Let's hope that this time the US Supreme Court holds to the high purpose they claim for themselves.