The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Thursday. trump vs anderson. The case concerns former President Donald Trump’s challenge to the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to remove him from the state’s presidential primary for inciting the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. Violating Article 14, Paragraph 3.
Interest in the case is growing because the outcome will affect how the entire 2024 election unfolds. As of the end of January, 51 court briefs (friend of the court) had been filed. Of those, 34 were in support of petitioner Donald Trump. 4. Supports defendant Norma Anderson, a Colorado voter who filed a lawsuit to deny Trump access to the ballot. Thirteen people do not support either side.
one of neutral briefs The lawsuit was filed by three prominent election law experts. Benjamin Ginsburg is a lifelong lawyer representing Republican officials, candidates, and committees. Edward Foley, professor of constitutional law and election law at The Ohio State University; and Richard Hasen, professor of law and political science at UCLA School of Law. Their brief featured an almost apocalyptic warning of what would happen if the Supreme Court did not rule early and decisively to avert a national catastrophe. . The 20-page brief uses the word “violence” seven times, but is peppered with similar terms. The authors make a strong case for how these dire consequences can unfold if the problem is not addressed early. Despite their professed neutrality, they repeat many of the same arguments made in the Colorado Supreme Court’s 4-3 majority opinion.
Although it is a more modest key, Compelling and neutral brief Filed by Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D). She argues that the central questions “must be fully answered now” because state election officials and voters “deserve to know.” [Trump] You are eligible to appear on the ballot as a candidate before voting in the primary and general elections. “Now is the time to make final decisions so that states and their election officials can conduct efficient and meaningful elections,” she added. Michigan’s primary election will be held on February 27th. The state of Michigan ruled against a group of citizens who sued to remove Trump from the vote, and her decision was upheld by the state appellate court and the Supreme Court.
The brief on behalf of petitioner Trump stated: Submitted by Kurt T. RushHe is a professor of constitutional law at the University of Richmond School of Law and a preeminent expert on the history of the Fourteenth Amendment, including the Third. Rush argues that Article III does not apply to the president and that Congress, in enacting the amendment, Rather, they were more afraid that Confederate leaders would use their popularity at the state level to secure seats in Congress and government appointments.
Mr. Rush points out that an early draft of the Fourteenth Amendment, authored by Representative Samuel McKee (R-Ky.), stated in part, “No person shall be entitled to or hold the office of President or Vice President of the United States.” It was pointed out that it had been declared that “no person shall be allowed to work in any country.” , any member of the Senate or House of Representatives of any national Congress, or any office currently held by appointment of the President…any person who has ever been or will be involved in an armed conspiracy or insurrection against the Government of the United States…”
This draft was never voted on, and instead the final wording of Article 3 removed “President or Vice President” as principal and instead read:Any person in any public office, civil or military, under the United States or any State, who has previously taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States. [and] Who would have revolted or revolted against the same…”
Proponents of including the president argue that the president is implicitly included in the phrase “any office, civil or military,” but Rush argues that the president is not a civilian officer of the United States; He insists with all his might that he was appointed by the United States. president. Although he acknowledges that the language of Article 3 is ambiguous, the detailed legislative and historical history of his amendment is strong and persuasive.
I previously argued that to avoid disputes over access to the ballot, the Supreme Court has held that Section 3 applies only to those holding or recently elected to office, not to candidates. I was thinking that they might rely on arguments. But that could still leave Congress with a post-election mess that will have to be resolved under rules and laws before Inauguration Day, which is sure to be even more chaotic than 2021.
The Supreme Court would be better off adopting Rush’s argument that the president is not a civilian official of the United States and therefore is not subject to Article III. That would bring about the kind of swift and decisive resolution sought by Michigan’s Secretary of State. , thousands of other election officials, and millions of voters across the country.
Don Wolfensberger is a 28-year veteran of Congress, having served as the Minority Staff Director for the House Rules Committee and as Chief of Staff for all committees. His books include Parliament and the People: Deliberative Democracy in Courts (2000) and Changing Parliamentary Culture: From Fair Play to Power Play (2018). The views expressed are his own.
Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
