Why Colorado's Decision to Stand Against Trump is a Necessary Action
John Avron
After the dust settled following the Capitol riots on January 6, 2021, a heated debate has ensued about the potential future implications of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for figures like Trump and other agitators. With good intentions, some may disagree, but for me, the answer seems self-evident.
In clear context, the 14th Amendment's purpose involves preventing future betrayals and rebellions, beyond just the Confederacy. As a Senator stated at the time, "The purpose of this permanent provision of the Constitution is to prevent future acts of treason... a measure of self-defense."
The discussion then shifts to considering the Capitol riots as an act of rebellion. In early 2021, Mark Graeber, a constitutional law professor at the University of Maryland and renowned expert in the 14th Amendment, stated, "From a constitutional standpoint, there is no difference between attempting to overturn an election through fraud, violence, or intimidation - it's all rebellion."
As for Trump, despite not entering the Capitol himself, it's my belief that he provoked an insurrection with the goal of preventing the certification of the election through violence and intimidation, denying any wrongdoing. The 14th Amendment clearly states that anyone who provides 'aid or comfort' to insurrection or rebellion is subject to disqualification from future public office. Through his tweets, speeches, and encouraging the broader conspiracy aimed at overturning the election, Trump is undeniably providing 'aid and comfort' to the insurrection attempt.
The Supreme Court of Colorado's unanimous judgment made it clear that this was not about partisan favoritism but rather accurately applying the law while disregarding public opinion. The court's ruling stated, "We do not come to these conclusions lightly. We are fully aware of the weighty and significant problems now before us. Our only responsibility is to apply the law without fear or favor."
The absurd idea that Section 3 is not applicable to Trump has always seemed ridiculous to me. The amendment states, "any civil or military officer ... within the United States," and could even extend to future actions against congressional members who collaborate with insurgents. Notably, conservative legal scholars, as part of the Federalist Society, have investigated and concluded that the 14th Amendment does, in fact, apply to Trump.
As of now, the case will be forwarded to the U.S. Supreme Court, which, with its conservative leanings, may not provide a desirable resolution. However, if philosophical integrity and state rights prevent partisan interests from influencing the decision, then every judge committed to originality and justice will support the claim. The Supreme Court cannot honestly claim that the Constitution does not explicitly grant them such authority. The principle of equal justice under the law means that even a president who violates his oath and seeks to overthrow our government is subject to its penalties.
In truth, the use of such legal and constitutional prohibitions is limited in America. However, with insurrections being rare in the United States, the 14th Amendment was specifically crafted for use in such situations. Without accountability, an attempted coup would be mere practice.
Source:
```markdown
In this context, the Colorado Supreme Court's determination to disqualify Donald Trump from future public office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment stems from his involvement in the Capitol riots. The court's ruling was supported by a historical interpretation of the amendment's text, which aimed to prevent individuals who engaged in treasonous acts, rebels, or gave 'aid or comfort' to insurrections from holding public office.
- Contextual Importance: Section 3 was revisited in the case of the Capitol riots as it applies to individuals who have participated in insurrections, rebellions, or who have provided aid or comfort to those who have. In the case of Trump, his role in the events of January 6, 2021, is firmly rooted in this context and is central to the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to apply Section 3.
- Textual Analysis: The Colorado Supreme Court's decision to disqualify Trump from holding public office under Section 3 was based on the text of the amendment, which states that anyone who has engaged in insurrection, rebellion, or given aid or comfort to insurrection or rebellion is disqualified from public office. The court interpretation highlights that Trump's actions on January 6, 2021, constitute those of an insurrectionist.
- Legal Precedents: In the past, similar cases, such as Cuoy Griffin's, established the modern application of Section 3 in relevant situations. Griffin, the former New Mexico County Commissioner, was removed from office and barred from future office after being convicted of leading a riot during protests in 2022. The Griffin case serve as a recent precedent for the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to disqualify Trump.
- Enforcement Mechanisms: Section 3 has various enforcement mechanisms, including supermajority votes in Congress or potential state court action against federal officeholders for violating the 14th Amendment. However, the ultimate determination of enforcing Section 3 against Trump will depend on the legislative or judicial process that follows the Colorado Supreme Court's decision.
In summary, the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to disqualify Trump from future public office was based on the textual context of the 14th Amendment and its historical purpose to prevent individuals who engage in treasonous acts, rebellions, or who provide 'aid or comfort' to insurrections from holding public office. The court's judgment is supported by the legal precedent of events like the 2022 New Mexico riot and relies on the various enforcement mechanisms available in the U.S. legal system. ```
