Legally speaking, the Supreme Court must prohibit Trump from standing on the 2024 ballot

Anjali Jain
Opinion: The law is clear: The Supreme Court must not allow Trump on the 2024 ballot

Colorado’s ability to bar Donald Trump from its primary ballot on the basis of his participation in an insurrection, as protected by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment; if the U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of Trump, concerns will be raised regarding the court’s potential politicization in support of Republican ideology and candidates.
However, should Trump re-establish himself as president, the Republican ideology, and any ideology for that matter, will be beyond recognition.
It is evident that he would reduce assistance to Ukraine and potentially incite Russia to invade members of NATO who fail to contribute their portion of the expenditures. The individual in question would assume authority over every U.S. agency, including the Justice Department, impose limitations on press freedom, dismiss attorney generals who failed to prosecute his political adversaries and detractors, and purge the government of disloyal personnel. Threatening and inciting violent demonstrations against individuals he suspected of being complicit in the decision to exclude him.

This agenda does not align with the Republican ideology. Perhaps Trump’s rhetoric is merely rhetorical. However, the SCOTUS cannot assume such a risk.
Justice Samuel Alito emphasized in overturning Roe v. Wade that “extraneous influences, such as violent protests and attacks on anti-Trump actors, cannot affect our decisions.” Trump’s ability to incite violence has significantly diminished as a result of his supporters’ apprehension that their savior will not rescue them and their dread of arrest. Recent pro-Trump demonstrations have been dominated by journalists.
Observe as every one of Trump’s alarming policy proposals is unveiled in speeches.
Nevertheless, SCOTUS has issued a dozen opinions in recent years that contemplate the possibility of problematic repercussions, despite its prior declaration that “consequences cannot alter our understanding of the law.”
In this particular scenario, prohibiting Trump from running would have advantageous ramifications, as it would eliminate the most divisive and perilous menace to our democracy since the American Civil War. It would also indicate that the SCOTUS was not politically motivated.
Five of the nine justices publicly identify as “originalists.” However, their abandonment of originalism in decisions regarding abortion, religion, and firearms rights has earned them criticism. Conservative justices, who take great pride in their adherence to the Constitution’s original intent, regard such criticisms as incriminating.
Nevertheless, definitions of originalism are in conflict. According to former Justice Antonin Scalia, the contemporary interpretation of the Constitution should not be determined by societal or judicial consensus, but rather by its original intent at the time of its adoption. Conversely, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Alito contend that although the initial values of the Constitution persist, they can be modified to accommodate evolving circumstances.
In light of credible originalist analysis and the repercussions of their decision, the Supreme Court can and should prohibit Trump from running.
Defendants of Trump contend that opposition to his candidacy “threatens the disenfranchisement of tens of millions of American voters.” However, that was precisely the intent of the framers of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment: to disregard ballots cast in support of insurrectionists.
The impetus for Section 3 initially stemmed from a foiled endeavor to unlawfully appoint Confederate candidates to Congress—an attempt analogous to the one Trump made to replace an elected president with an unelected one. Section 3 remained in effect even after the dissolution of the Confederacy. As mandated by Article VI, all officials who sign an oath to uphold the Constitution must continue to adhere by it. Candidates who incite rebellion are deemed ineligible to run for office.
One of the most significant challenges during Reconstruction was preserving national unity; at present, that concern is preserving our democracy, an institution that Trump seeks to dismantle.
The defense attorneys for Trump cautioned that if Colorado’s ban is upheld, it will result in “anarchy and disarray,” as various presidential candidates will be running for office in different states. However, that course of action would prevent anarchy by preventing Trump from assuming the presidency.
The Colorado Supreme Court and the highest court in the state reached the same conclusion regarding the factual matter of whether or not Trump is an insurrectionist. Although the Colorado appellate judge concurred, he placed him on the ballot due to the ambiguity surrounding whether the president qualifies as a “officer” under Section 3. SCOTUS has ruled that federal courts presume the factual determinations of state courts, barring manifest error. As a result, the SCOTUS is not required to review Colorado’s determination that Trump is an insurrectionist.
Additionally, Trump’s attorneys contend that Section 3 does not pertain to him since the presidency is not a “office” of the United States. Essentially, they are stating that the authors of Section 3 had in mind that an insurrectionist might be permitted to occupy the highest and most influential office in the nation, but not lower positions. This is illogical.
The presidency is undoubtedly a United States office. According to Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution stipulates that “The President of the United States shall hold office for a term of four years.” Furthermore, as stated in Article II, Section I, the president is obligated to “solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President” (emphasis added).
In accordance with Section 3, disqualifications from office are self-executing and do not require a court order. For this reason, no Confederate leader who was disqualified under Section 3 ever faced charges or legal proceedings related to insurrection or any other violation of Section 3. Jefferson Davis, the commander of the Confederacy, acknowledged that Section 3 was self-executing. However, he did so in order to escape facing criminal prosecution for treason, which would have constituted double jeopardy.
Congress retains the authority to revoke a candidate’s ineligibility under Section 3 with a two-thirds vote, thereby restoring their eligibility, even if Trump is disqualified from office. It retains the authority to do so notwithstanding a judicial ruling of ineligibility. SCOTUS has every right and reason to disqualify Trump from the presidency, both on constitutional grounds and in light of the repercussions of its decision.
Neil Baron is an attorney who has advised various branches of the federal government on economic matters and represented numerous institutions engaged in international markets.

TAGGED:
Share This Article
Follow:
Hello, I'm Anjali Jain, a passionate writer navigating the dynamic realms of entertainment, politics, and technology. My blog serves as a digital canvas where I explore the intricate threads that weave together these diverse spheres, offering readers a comprehensive and engaging perspective. Entertainment Aficionado: As an avid consumer of all things entertainment, I delve into the worlds of movies, television, music, and more. Through my blog, I share insightful analyses, reviews, and behind-the-scenes glimpses into the ever-evolving landscape of pop culture. Political Explorer: I'm not one to shy away from the complexities of the political arena. From local issues to global affairs, my writings aim to unravel the intricacies of political events, fostering meaningful conversations about the societal impact of policy decisions. Tech Enthusiast: With an insatiable curiosity for technology, I keep my readers abreast of the latest innovations and trends in the tech world. My articles break down complex concepts, making technology accessible and exploring its profound influence on our daily lives. Narrative Architect: Through my writing, I craft narratives that bridge the gap between entertainment, politics, and technology. Each blog post is a journey, offering readers a thought-provoking exploration of the forces shaping our world. Join me in unraveling the stories that define our culture. Connect with me on Facebook, Instagram and X for real-time updates, discussions, and a shared passion for the fascinating intersection of entertainment, politics, and tech.
Leave a comment

Discover more from Kordinate.World

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading