Latest Breaking News On - Holding federal office - Page 1 : vimarsana.com
united states constitution about the acts that i believe he engaged in and to colorado courts do also. there can be disagreement, if there is disagreement, we follow a judicial process. that is exactly what is happening here. ultimately, my job is to follow the law, uphold the constitution and listen to the highest court and what they say. that was caught out janet griswold earlier tonight responding to news that the supreme court has agreed to hear donald trump's appeal challenging a ruling by the colorado state supreme court bearing his name from appearing on the republican primary ballot. this case and pending cases like it in other states now hinges on how the supreme court will interpret section three of the 14th amendment, which prohibits those who swore an oath to protect the constitution and then engage in insurrection, from holding federal office again. colorado state supreme court
possibilities. this is a political question that only congress can decide, for example, or a ruling that it is not apply to the president. or that congress needs to have some sort of executing legislation before this becomes actionable. there are a lot of different issues at work here that could give the supreme court a way out without squarely addressing that substantive issue. >> so then, paul, how do you think the originalist's interpretation of the 14th amendment will factor into how the conservative justices will rule. >> so, jonathan, the colorado supreme court is not filled with members of the democratic national committee. they are seasoned judges who wrote up a 100-page plus opinion specifically marketed to the conservatives on the supreme court. the colorado supreme court opinion utilized originalist argument, textualists argument, that the conservatives put to reach their holding. what happened on january six was an insurrection within the meaning of section three, and that president trump is an insurrectionist, who is that's disqualified from office, based on the tax and the original meaning of section three. >> barbara, donald trump's
oath to protect the constitution and then engage in insurrection, from holding federal office again. colorado state supreme court affirmed a lower court ruling that donald trump is disqualified because he engaged in insurrection. the supreme court will hear arguments on february the 8th, and donald trump's name will remain on colorado's primary ballot until the court rules. joining us now, barb mcquade, former u.s. attorney and a law professor at the university of michigan law school. she is co-host of the hashtag sisters in law podcast and author of the upcoming book, attack from within, how disinformation is sabotaging america, which will be released on february 27th. and paul butler, former federal prosecutor and professor of law at georgetown university, both for nbc legal analysts. barb, start with you. how do you think the supreme court will go about ruling on this issue? could they go narrow and amid their decision to colorado, or could they go brought with a ruling that applies nationally? >> yes, it will be interesting to see, jonathan. one of the issue interesting things about the order today, that they would take this case up for review is that they did not specify which questions they were going to take up, which they typically do.
>> you can go all the way through the constitution and find lots of places where the president and the presidency are referred to us officers or officials or offices. in fact, the president of the united states swears an oath to uphold the office of the presidency. so, it's a very clear. that one is not even a serious issue. and, they are throwing a lot of spaghetti at the wall, in order to deny the very clear meaning of section three of the 14th amendment. but, even jefferson davis, who was put on trial in virginia for treason, set, of course, he was disqualified from being president for his participation in the succession, insurrection and are billion. he used that to observe and try to use double jeopardy, which was ridiculous argument. the whole premise of the argument was, of course, he was disqualified by section three
interpret colorado law. that is one of the arguments that donald trump raises, and it's one of the reasons that we are seeing all these different kinds of outcomes all over the country. neil gorsuch himself is quoted as saying in an opinion he offered when he was not on the supreme court but was still a lower court judge and said, it's up to states to decide who gets on the ballot. i think that the process is going to be with all of these states, and though be deference to the states, but what the court will be looking at is the interpretation of the 14th amendment, and that is squarely in the wheelhouse of the u.s. supreme court. >> and, paul, how might this issue affect other questions that could go before the supreme court, such as presidential immunity and impeachment double jeopardy? >> so, the issue of whether section 3 applies to the president, whether january six was an insurrection, those are hard questions. there's only been one successful removal of an official from office under section three since at the
interpretation of the 14th amendment will factor into how the conservative justices will rule. >> so, jonathan, the colorado supreme court is not filled with members of the democratic national committee. they are seasoned judges who wrote up a 100-page plus opinion specifically marketed to the conservatives on the supreme court. the colorado supreme court opinion utilized originalist argument, textualists argument, that the conservatives put to reach their holding. what happened on january six was an insurrection within the meaning of section three, and that president trump is an insurrectionist, who is that's disqualified from office, based on the tax and the original meaning of section three. >> barbara, donald trump's
of the 14th amendment. that is a contemporaneous construction by a guy who had every reason to say, that it was not true. but everybody as always understood that the presidency is, of course, covered that way. it would be ridiculous to say that anybody can be disqualified from federal office for participating in insurrection or billion, except for the person who's best position to make the insurrection a rebellion work, as we saw with donald trump, who is pulling all the strings on that day. to this day, refuses to renounce ordinance the insurrection. on the contrary, he is crisscrossing the country, promising to pardon more than 900 people, who have been convicted of seditious conspiracy, assaulting federal officers, destroying federal property, interfering with a federal proceeding and so on. >> he's actually calling them, the folks in jail over the
states, and though be deference to the states, but what the court will be looking at is the interpretation of the 14th amendment, and that is squarely in the wheelhouse of the u.s. supreme court. >> and, paul, how might this issue affect other questions that could go before the supreme court, such as presidential immunity and impeachment double jeopardy? >> so, the issue of whether section 3 applies to the president, whether january six was an insurrection, those are hard questions. there's only been one successful removal of an official from office under section three since at the civil war, just one. lots of open questions. the immunity issue before the court now, ultimately before the supreme court now, going to the d.c. circuit, that is an easy case for the courts to decide. this is a more difficult case. in part, because it's the most important election law case since bush v. gore, which was a
issue. and, they are throwing a lot of spaghetti at the wall, in order to deny the very clear meaning of section three of the 14th amendment. but, even jefferson davis, who was put on trial in virginia for treason, set, of course, he was disqualified from being president for his participation in the succession, insurrection and are billion. he used that to observe and try to use double jeopardy, which was ridiculous argument. the whole premise of the argument was, of course, he was disqualified by section three of the 14th amendment. that is a contemporaneous construction by a guy who had every reason to say, that it was not true. but everybody as always understood that the presidency is, of course, covered that way. it would be ridiculous to say that anybody can be disqualified from federal office for participating in insurrection or billion, except for the person who's best position to make the insurrection a rebellion work, as we saw with donald trump,
disqualification for being president, because you choose to be in it, unlike somebody who is born abroad or happens to be just in their twenties, like my colleague, maxwell frost, who might make a great president, but is constitutionally disqualified, the same way that donald trump is. >> let me get you on one more thing, before i let you go. trump's lawyers, and even some of his supporters say section three at the 14th amendment, should not apply to him because it is not specifically say the office of president of the united states, or the president of the ignited states. but it does say in section three, or any officer of the in that estates. you are the constitutional law scholar, i am not. but my reading of that is, any officer of the united states would include the president of the united states, no? >> you can go all the way through the constitution and find lots of places where the president and the presidency are referred to us officers or officials or offices. in fact, the president of the united states swears an oath to uphold the office of the presidency. so, it's a very clear. that one is not even a serious