suggest that. is there any evidence to suggest that the presidency was what they were focused on? there is some evidence of that. there were people saying we don t want jefferson davis to be elected president and there was also one of the drafts of section 3 specifically mentioned the presidency and the vice president. but it wasn t the final enactment. right. it wasn t the final enactment, but it shows there was some concern about some people about confederate insurrectionists ascending to the presidency. we look at the historical evidence and pick the evidence we like and interpret is tan den shally because you can throw this counterveiling evidence back in our face. we wanted to focus on the text of the constitution, this was a compromised provision that was enacted in section 3. let me ask you another question about the states. you have forcefully made an argument about the states not being able to enforce section 3, so if we agree with you on that, what happens
that argument. there is some evidence to suggest that. any evidence to suggest the presidency was what they were focused on? there is some evidence of that. people saying we don t want jefferson davis to be elected president and one of the drafts of section three specifically mentioned the presidency and vice presidency. it wasn t the final inaction. it wasn t final but there was concern by some people about con federal insurrectionists ascendsing to the presidency. we didn t want to make a a history argument. the other side can come back and throw this counter evidence back in our face. we wanted to focus more on the text of the constitution. it was a compromise provision that was enacted in section three. let me ask you another question about the states because you have forcefully made an argument about the states not being able to enforce section three. so if we agree with you on that, what happens next? i thought you also wanted us to end the litigation so is
it cannot be more perfect. also, call about a secretary of state, jena griswold is going to join us. colorado is headed apparently to the supreme court without trump. the only thing all those people have in common is that they would like to supreme court to actually weigh in on this thing and get it moving. i am excited to hear the conversation. it s going to be the year at the supreme court. thanks, ali. tonight, 77-year-old donald trump is asking a court where he appointed three of the nine judges to save his presidential campaign. donald trump s lawyers have filed an appeal, asking the united states supreme court to overturn the decision by the colorado state supreme court to ban donald trump from the presidential ballot in colorado. colorado supreme court s decision is based on the 14th amendment, which is ratified in 1868. it does not allow officers of the federal government to be elected to office again if they have engaged in insurrection against the united state
interpret the constitution based on the specific text and the document. so that says to me that they might have an uphill climb to be opposed by the supreme court. i also think what s notable here, the court may a college the opinion that this is a big deal. they know what they are doing. it s historic. and they know there is gonna be blowback. they say, look, we are mindful of the magnitude and the weight of that questions before us. we are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law without fear or favor and without being swayed by public reaction to that decision that the law mandates we reach. and of course, the loudest, biggest reaction from former president trump was trying to frame this as political persecution, which i am sure they could see coming. that s right. the trump trump campaign released a statement. we haven t really heard from trump on this. he was speaking in iowa. he did not really note anything. just very quickly, what are his allies saying?
collins starts right now. announcer: this is cnn breaking news. we do begin with breaking news. a blockbuster from the colorado supreme court, ruling that donald trump is disqualified from running for president in that state in 2024. officially booting him from the ballot. tonight, the country is in uncharted waters. from the ruling, i m quoting, president trump is disqualified from holding the office of president under section 3 of the 14th amendment. it would be a wrongful act to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot. this ruling just out tonight goes tonon to say, president tr didn t merely insight the resurrection, he continued to support it by demanding the vice president, mike pence, refuse to perform his constitutional duty and by calling senators to persuade them to stop the counting of electioral votes. these actions constituted overt, voluntary and direct participation in that insurrection. of course, as you look at this tonight, it s import