UNITED STATES NEWS

Trump’s fate and an obscure section of the Constitution collide at Supreme Court

Feb 5, 2024, 10:04 PM

FILE - The Supreme Court is seen at sunset in Washington, on Jan. 24, 2019. The Supreme Court will ...

FILE - The Supreme Court is seen at sunset in Washington, on Jan. 24, 2019. The Supreme Court will be taking its first look in the 156-year history of the 14th Amendment at a provision, Section 3, that's meant to keep former officeholders who "engaged in insurrection" from ever regaining power. The stakes couldn't be higher in arguments taking place on Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)
Credit: ASSOCIATED PRESS

(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

WASHINGTON (AP) — From civil rights to privacy, the 14th Amendment has been a foundation for forging the norms of American law and democracy. But one of its provisions, adopted after the Civil War in 1868, has gotten almost no attention until now: That’s Section 3, the part that’s meant to keep former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from ever regaining power.

The Supreme Court on Thursday will be taking its first look at the insurrection clause in a case in which the stakes couldn’t be higher.

Former President Donald Trump is the leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. But Republican and unaffiliated voters in Colorado argue that Trump is disqualified from being president again because he engaged in insurrection by trying to overturn his loss in the 2020 election, culminating in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. The Colorado case was one of several filed around the country seeking to block Trump from state ballots.

The voters say that if Trump can’t be president again, he shouldn’t be on the ballot, and the Colorado Supreme Court agreed in a first-of-its kind decision.

The case seems certain to bring on a collision of law and politics that the Supreme Court typically likes to avoid, but in this case, cannot ignore.

Trump appealed the Colorado ruling and that case will be argued on Thursday. The issue has come up elsewhere, but Colorado’s court is the only one to rule against the former president. Maine’s Democratic secretary of state also has determined that Trump shouldn’t be on that state’s primary ballot. Both the Maine and Colorado decisions are on hold pending the outcome in the Supreme Court.

The justices will be dealing with a handful of legal issues that include whether Trump did, in fact, engage in insurrection and whether the presidency is covered by the constitutional provision at issue.

Here is a look at the issues the court will confront:

WHO DECIDES?

There are several ways in which the court could avoid a definitive ruling, even though both sides say it’s vitally important for the court to make a final decision now about Trump’s eligibility for the ballot.

The justices could issue a ruling that applies only to Colorado or say the issue is not yet ripe for a decision.

They also could conclude that the political branches of government and voters, and not the court, should decide whether to put Trump on the ballot.

Trump’s attorneys raise the prospect of a national checkerboard of presidential elections if the issue is left to politicians, where some states’ leaders might allow voters to choose the likely Republican nominee and some might not.

Attorneys for the voters trying to remove Trump from the ballot argue that the question is too important to be left to politics. It’s one of following the plain language of the Constitution, which applies to everyone, regardless of how much political support they may have.

Still, there’s a way for the court to toss the question to one group of politicians that would work slightly differently.

DOES CONGRESS HAVE A SAY?

Section 3 allows Congress to restore someone’s eligibility by a two-thirds vote. But it says nothing about whether Congress has to do anything at the start of the process, before states can start applying the provision.

In 1869, after many people were already barred from office under the measure, Salmon Chase, the then-chief justice of the United States, found that there has to be congressional legislation creating a process to find someone covered by Section 3. Chase was acting as an appellate judge in an era when justices “rode circuit” before the creation of federal appeals courts.

A few months earlier, though, Chase took the opposite position in a case involving Jefferson Davis. Chase’s contradictory assessments about Section 3, separated only by a few months, “are almost impossible to reconcile,” law professor Gerard Magliocca has written.

Trump’s attorneys and allies argue Congress needs to act, rather than leaving eligibility decisions to what they contend could be partisan courts. The attorneys seeking to disqualify Trump contend that Section 3 of the 14th amendment is just like its other provisions, ready to be applied without the need for additional legislation.

Some legal experts warn that kicking the fraught issue to a politically polarized Congress is perilous. It might mean the issue is not dealt with until Jan. 6, 2025, if Trump wins at the ballot box in November and Congress has to certify his election.

That “would risk catastrophic political instability, chance disenfranchising millions of voters, and raise the possibility of public violence,” warns one friend of the court brief filed by legal experts.

DOES THE AMENDMENT EVEN APPLY TO TRUMP OR ANY CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT?

This is where things get technical.

Section 3 reads: “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.”

Notice what office isn’t specifically mentioned in the text — the presidency (or vice presidency).

Trump’s attorneys argue that means the provision doesn’t apply to presidents. The only reference to other officials is “officer of the United States,” a term that appears elsewhere in the Constitution and, they contend, doesn’t apply to the president. They also point out that the provision bars insurrectionists who took an oath to “support the Constitution.” At his inaugural, Trump pledged to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” in an oath “in which the word ‘support’ is nowhere to be found,” his lawyer wrote. Finally, nothing in the text says someone can’t be a candidate for these offices, so the court can’t ban Trump from the ballot.

The attorneys trying to remove Trump contend this is just clever wordplay. The Supreme Court, they note, has never agreed with the highly technical argument that the president is not “an officer of the United States.” The president isn’t named in the text of Section 3, they argue, because the president is obviously an officer of the United States — why, they ask, would the drafters of the 14th Amendment want to bar low level oath-breakers from returning to office but allow one to become the leader of the country?

As for the oath, they wrote that dictionaries from the time of the nation’s founding and Civil War era listed “support” and “defend” as synonyms for each other. If anything, they noted, “the President’s oath is more demanding than mere ‘support.’”

And the core of their case is that state courts like Colorado’s have a duty to ensure that only qualified candidates are on the ballot. That means they can strike Trump for violating Section 3, just as they would remove someone who didn’t meet the constitutional standard of being a natural-born citizen.

DID TRUMP ENGAGE IN INSURRECTION?

This might be the least technical of all the aspects of the case, but it also is highly contested.

Relying on the work of the congressional committee that investigated the Jan. 6 attack, the lawyers arguing to keep Trump off the ballot recite volumes of evidence of Trump’s actions that they say incited the deadly attack, including his speech on that same day in which he urged supporters to “fight like hell.”

They note that, in the post-Civil War period, Section 3 was used against not only people who fought for the Confederacy but against those who organized on its behalf and even issued rhetorical support for the uprising.

Trump’s attorneys counter that the congressional Jan. 6 report is one-sided and that Trump in no way “engaged” in insurrection. They argue he didn’t enter the Capitol, didn’t tell his supporters to be violent and called for them to be peaceful at one point in his speech on the Ellipse and then in two subsequent tweets.

Instead, Trump’s lawyers argue, the president was simply engaging in free speech to talk about an election he honestly believed had been stolen from him.

This is the most politically significant portion of the case. Even if the high court lets Trump stay on the ballot, the decision could play a major part in this year’s presidential campaign, if it has anything to say about Trump’s culpability for Jan. 6.

___

Riccardi reported from Denver.

United States News

Associated Press

Federal prosecutors accuse a New Mexico woman of fraud in oil and gas royalty case

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) — A New Mexico businesswoman is accused of defrauding the U.S. government and two Native American tribes of taxes and royalties due to them for oil and gas that her companies extracted from leased federal and tribal lands. Federal prosecutors announced this week that Teresa McCown recently was indicted by a grand […]

47 minutes ago

Associated Press

Kansas man pleads guilty to causing crash that killed officer, pedestrian and K-9 last February

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) — A Kansas man has pleaded guilty to smashing into a Kansas City, Missouri, patrol car last year and killing an officer, his K-9 partner and a pedestrian. Jerron Lightfoot of Tonganoxie, Kansas, pleaded guilty Friday to two counts of involuntary manslaughter and admitted speeding through a red light before the […]

1 hour ago

Associated Press

Brother of suspect in nursing student’s killing had fake green card, feds say

ATHENS, Ga. (AP) — The brother of the man charged with killing a Georgia nursing student has been accused of presenting a fake green card to police as they investigated the woman’s death, according to federal authorities. The brothers, Jose and Diego Ibarra, are from Venezuela, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of […]

2 hours ago

Associated Press

Death of beloved New York City owl, Flaco, in apparent building collision devastates legions of fans

Tributes poured in Saturday for Flaco, the beloved Eurasian eagle-owl that became a feel-good New York story after escaping its Central Park Zoo enclosure and flying free around Manhattan. Flaco was found dead on a New York City sidewalk Friday night after apparently flying into a building. It was a heartbreaking end for the birders […]

4 hours ago

Associated Press

New Jersey man acquitted in retrial in 2014 beating death of college student from Tennessee

NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. (AP) — A New Jersey man has been acquitted in a retrial in the beating death of a college student from Tennessee a decade ago. Jurors in Middlesex County deliberated for five hours before acquitting Timothy Puskas of all charges Wednesday in the 2014 death of 22-year-old former Rutgers student William McCaw […]

7 hours ago

Liam Lazo boards a diesel school bus near his home, Tuesday, Feb. 6, 2024, in Virginia Beach, Va. D...

Associated Press

Tired of diesel fumes, these moms are pushing for electric school buses

Areli Sanchez’s daughter, Aida, used to be one of 20 million American kids who ride a diesel bus to school each day. Aida has asthma. When she was little, she complained about the smell and cloud of fumes on her twice-daily trip. “When she would come home from school or be on the bus, she […]

8 hours ago

Sponsored Articles

...

Midwestern University

Midwestern University Clinics: transforming health care in the valley

Midwestern University, long a fixture of comprehensive health care education in the West Valley, is also a recognized leader in community health care.

...

Collins Comfort Masters

Here’s 1 way to ensure your family is drinking safe water

Water is maybe one of the most important resources in our lives, and especially if you have kids, you want them to have access to safe water.

(KTAR News Graphic)...

Boys & Girls Clubs

KTAR launches online holiday auction benefitting Boys & Girls Clubs of the Valley

KTAR is teaming up with The Boys & Girls Clubs of the Valley for a holiday auction benefitting thousands of Valley kids.

Trump’s fate and an obscure section of the Constitution collide at Supreme Court