Former President Donald Trump was not “engaged in the insurrection” and is not an “officer of the United States” as defined by the U.S. Constitution, a U.S. Supreme Court brief filed this week on his behalf argues. There is.
The brief relates to a controversial decision by the Colorado Supreme Court, in which the court ruled 4-3 that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, colloquially known as “insurrection,” Based on the findings, Trump was disqualified from participating in Colorado's Republican presidential primary. clause. “
WATCH — Sen. Graham: Trump plans to be on the Colorado ballot, 'he will win the primary':
“The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection as those terms are used in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.” ruling Partially read.
In the end, President Trump's main point is concluded “The Colorado Supreme Court's decision should be overturned,” it argues, and its arguments hinge on three main points, all of which undermine the Colorado Supreme Court's decision.
First, Trump's lawyers argue that he is not technically an “officer of the United States” as defined in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Former Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at a caucus night party in Des Moines, Iowa, on January 15, 2024. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
“Section 3 disqualification applies only to persons who have “previously taken the oath as a member of Congress, an officer of the United States, a member of a state legislature, or an executive or judicial officer of the government.” “The state upholds the Constitution of the United States,” the brief states.
“It is an undisputed fact that President Trump has never taken such an oath as a member of Congress, a state representative, or as a state executive or judicial officer. “Article III does not apply to President Trump unless he qualifies as an “officer of the United States,'''' he continued, “The text and structure of the Constitution makes it clear that the president is not an “officer.'' claims. American. ”
WATCH — Bill Barr: SCOTUS will 'slap' Colorado disqualification decision:
“The expression 'officer of the United States' appears in three articles of the Constitution other than Article III, and each time the president is excluded,” the brief states.
The brief also claims that Trump did not “engage in the insurrection.”
Additionally, the court should reverse the 2020 election and what President Trump did on January 6, 2021, because it does not even remotely constitute “insurrection.” Despite the persistent and ongoing investigation into President Trump, in the three years since January 6, 2021, no prosecutor has attempted to charge him with insurrection under 28 U.S.C. Section 2383. not present. There's a good reason for that. President Trump's words that day called for peaceful, patriotic protests and respect for law and order.
…
Finally, President Trump's speech at the Ellipse and his post-election tweets and statements do not amount to “incitement” under the following laws: Brandenburg vs. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969).President Trump's comments will not be punished. brandenburg unless they are “directed to incite or produce an imminent unlawful act” and are “likely to incite or produce such an act.”of brandenburg The standard doesn't turn on whether violence actually occurs in response to what a person says. All that matters is whether the speech itself was “intended” or “likely” to incite imminent violence, and if President Trump had given the same speech and President Trump's claims Even if the supporters in the street were completely peaceful, it would not change the constitutionality of President Trump's statements. Because this type of language and rhetoric is common in political discourse, this court will never tolerate criminal prosecution of a speaker who tells his audience to “fight like hell” and “take back our country.” Because President Trump did not “incite violence.” brandenburgThis in itself means that he did not “participate in the rebellion.”
Watch — Kasich: Colorado disqualification decision “pure partisan nonsense”:
Finally, the brief argues that if Article 3 applies, it should be enforced only by Congress's “selected mode of enforcement” rather than the courts.
“The language of Article III does not confer enforcement authority on state courts or state officials, nor does it provide a process for determining whether an individual has been “involved in a riot'' and is disqualified from holding an enumerated office. “No,” the preparation says. He pointed out that the 14th Amendment “authorizes Congress to 'enforce' Article III by 'appropriate legislation.'”
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case on February 8th.
The case is trump vs andersonU.S. Supreme Court No. 23-719.
