The 14th Amendment’s Section 3 declares: “No person shall… hold any office, civil or military, who, having previously taken an oath… 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.”
The restriction in Section 3 only pertains to those who have “previously taken an oath,” not to anyone who has “engaged in insurrection.”
This means that if someone has used violence after taking an oath to participate in democratic politics, they are not fit to serve as president.
Recall that Southern Slaveholders held the presidency till two thirds of the period between George Washington’s inauguration in 1789 and the South’s secession in 1861.
Men who had taken oaths to defend the Constitution led the South’s insurrection and succession in 1860, just after Abraham Lincoln was elected president on the promise of restrict slavery.
Therefore, Section 3 sets a very clear and solid standard for office, one that “originalists” and fans of the Constitution would undoubtedly highly respect.
Attorneys for President Donald Trump contend in the Supreme Court brief that “bedlam” would follow if Colorado’s ruling is upheld. Regardless of the ramifications, the task at hand is to adhere to the plain language of the Constitution.
Colorado was established as a free territory, and the South’s goal in starting the Civil War was to introduce slavery to areas of the West, including Colorado, which had previously been a part of Kansas. The struggle to stop the spread of slavery centered on the West.
Colorado can therefore depend on the wording of the Constitution when it joined the Union, which stated that it would not be governed by officers who had previously participated in insurrection.
Many specialized legal questions have been brought up, such as “what is the oath?” and “is the presidency a relevant office?” These have all been attempts to undermine the ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court that Trump was ineligible to hold office due to his actions.
There are only two relevant questions: 1. Who gets to decide? 2. Do the events of January 6 constitute an insurrection, and did President Trump engage in it?
Regarding January 6, a lot has been written; Even if the events of that day were unclear, is there any doubt that President Trump’s actions since then—attacking the legal system, disparaging specific judges, and accusing others of fraud in any circumstance in which he lost—amount to ongoing insurrection?
The Colorado Supreme Court received a flurry of death threats after it rendered its decision.
Section 3 does not specify who makes the decisions, any more than it does not specify who determines whether an individual must be 35 years old or a “natural born” citizen in order to be eligible to serve as president.
Any legal proceeding typically begins with a trial court making factual determinations. the Denver District Court found that Trump had participated in insurrection.
The 1974 Nixon Papers Case, in which the Supreme Court unanimously ruled 8-0 against President Richard Nixon and ordered him to turn over the White House tapes—which he complied with without resorting to violence—is widely regarded by Supreme Court watchers as the pinnacle of the modern era.
Nixon nominated Burger, Blackmun, and Powell among the five justices appointed by Republican presidents included in that unanimous ruling.
The six justices on the current Court, all appointed by Republican presidents George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump, all identify as “originalists,” and Colorado’s Neil Gorsuch is the justice who exhibits the most natural leadership in this case.