Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy filed a 41-page amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, asking the Colorado Supreme Court's 4-3 decision to disqualify former President Donald Trump from voting. demand.
The move illustrates an interesting dynamic, with Mr. Ramaswamy seeking to support his campaign rivals, but his lawyers say in filings that, like Mr. Ramaswamy himself, Mr. Ramaswamy also He emphasizes that he is interested in protecting the rights of voters. Someone else.
Under “Amicus Curiae Interests,” in a brief obtained by Breitbart News ahead of Thursday's midday filing, the candidate's legal team wrote that Ramaswamy “has no right to vote for any candidate.” I have a deep interest in preserving it.” Choose the one that best suits the person's preferences, even if that candidate is someone other than yourself. ”
Vivek Ramaswami Amicus Brief 1-10-24 by Breitbart News On Scribd
The brief said efforts to remove Trump from ballots in several states, including Colorado and Maine, were driven by fears that Trump's opponents would not defeat him at the polls. The conclusion is that it cannot be done.
President Trump's political opponents are trying to disqualify him from voting in several states, fearing he won't be able to defeat him in a free and fair election. Needless to say, the pain of playing against a formidable opponent does not justify disqualification under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. And the impact of affirming the Colorado Supreme Court's decision would extend far beyond the controversy over Donald Trump's eligibility.
Specifically, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment contains an insurrection clause and is cited in both the Colorado Supreme Court's decision and the decision of Maine Secretary of State Shena Bellows. Colorado's order is on hold until the Supreme Court considers the issue, and Bellows' decision also depends on the court's ruling.
The brief says that if the lower courts' interpretation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is upheld, local state officials, such as chief justices and Supreme Court justices, would seek “national notoriety” that would impede a presidential candidate's candidacy. They argue that this would create a slippery slope that would allow for Upcoming votes:
Specifically, the Court's upholding of lower courts' interpretations of Article III would distort incentives for both state decision makers and voters. For secretaries of state and state Supreme Court justices, the path to national notoriety will be illuminated. To increase your credibility among your co-partisans, all you have to do is fabricate a reason to declare your opponent's unpopular presidential candidate ineligible to run. For voters, the message will be equally clear. The idea is to scrutinize the record of candidates who have been unpopular with speeches that include combative rhetoric or policies that have had unintended consequences, and then file a challenge under Article III. The number of complaints under Article 3 will skyrocket. Number of different results.
But even if the court finds these results unconvincing, there are strong textual and structural reasons to reject the Colorado Supreme Court's interpretation of Article III. Most obviously, the phrase “official of the United States” in the context of Article III is never understood. To interview the President of the United States. The available constitutional evidence, combined with the devastating effects of disbarment, should lead this court to reverse the decision below.
Additionally, the law contains “strong textual provisions that reject the Colorado Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 3,'' including that the phrase “official of the United States'' under Section 3 is “never understood to cover the President.'' and structural reasons. American. ”
Former President Donald Trump speaks at a rally on July 7, 2023. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel, File)
“Given the available constitutional evidence and the devastating effects of disbarment, this court should reverse the following decisions,” it added.
The case is trump vs andersonNo. 23-719, Supreme Court of the United States.
