DISQULIFYING TRUMP?

 No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, 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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. -Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution

As we all know, around 2 weeks ago the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution disqualifies Donald Trump from holding the office of president of the United States.  Now, this amendment states that no one who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and then "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" can hold office.  The Colorado court ruled that, by inspiring the riot of January 6th.  Trump disqualified himself from holding the office of the presidency in the future, because the riot counted as an insurrection.  Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court has said that they will take this case up soon, settling the matter for good in Colorado and other states that have challenged Trump's placement on the ballot.  And while this ruling has been cheered by many progressives, it should be pointed out some of the first people to make the case for Trump being disqualified under this amendment were   law professors William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, both members of the conservative Federalist Society.

Personally, I am of two minds on this issue.  On the one hand, I am certainly sympathetic to the argument that Trump's behavior not only on January 6th but also beforehand invalidates his right to be president.  His refusal to accept the outcome of the 2020 election, leading somewhat inevitably to violence, was a despicable stain on American history and on democracy itself.

On the other hand, the 14th Amendment was written in the wake of the Civil War to prevent any Confederacy leaders from holding office.  Was what Trump did, as horrible as it was, rise to the level of an insurrection?  Can it be compared to the Confederate states leaving the union?  It's hard to say. And I am sympathetic to the idea that Trump's fate should be chosen by voters and not the courts.

One interesting point here is that  the amendment itself never mentions the Confederacy specifically, just using the words "insurrection or rebellion", which would seem to me  that the Colorado Court was reasonable to use the broadness of the amendment's wording to disqualify Trump.  So, again I'm torn. A big part of the question is whether what happened on January 6th was a genuine insurrection, or whether it just a an angry mob venting its frustration at the outcome of an election.

Sadly, this ruling plays into Trump's constant narrative that he is always a victim of "the deep state".  Already he has used the court's ruling to fund raise for his campaign and polls of Republicans show them naturally rallying around him over the ruling. Even worse, the judges making the ruling have been flooded with violent threats, and if the Supreme Court does rule that Trump can be stripped from the ballot, those threats could very well become actions.  One thing that January 6th taught us is that Trump's strongest followers aren't afraid of using violence, and disqualifying Trump could push some of them over the edge.  Of course, no judges or politicians in a democracy should ever live in fear of making a controversial ruling or vote, but that is where the ascendency of Trump since 2015 has lead us.

In any event, the question of whether or not Trump can be disqualified is soon going to be decided by the Supreme Court, and I can't imagine that they will rule against Trump on this issue. Even though this court has ruled against him in the past, this issue will be seen as too important to take out of the hands of the voters.