Breaking News Shocking Twist Unveiled After Colorado Supreme Court’s Verdict on TrumpDiscover the jaw-dropping aftermath now.For the first time, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has been used to bar a presidential contender from appearing on a state ballot. Last night, the Colorado Supreme Court rendered a historic judgement, holding that former President Trump’s participation in rebellion precluded his inclusion on the Republican primary ballot. The Trump campaign has announced that it would appeal the ruling. Jeffrey Rosen is now here to discuss all of this with us. In addition to being the president and CEO of the National Constitution Centre, he teaches at George Washington Law School. Greetings.
It’s good to be here, Jeffrey Rosen.
CHANGE: Could you perhaps provide us with a quick explanation of the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision, Jeffrey?
ROSEN: Of course, this was a very crucial decision. Furthermore, a majority of the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that, in accordance with Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, President Trump is in fact unable to run for president. Although the trial court determined that he had engaged in rebellion. Which is forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment, and that he should be removed from office. It concluded that the president was exempt from the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority of the Colorado Supreme Court disagreed with that ruling. Stating that the president is protected and that he did participate in insurrection. More importantly, they held that the amendment can be implemented without Congress passing a law stating that a specific group of people engaged in insurrection before the law can be implemented.
CHANG: Alright.
ROSEN: There was a lot of disagreement, and the US Supreme Court will undoubtedly hear a lot about it. And the opponents essentially stated…
CHANGE: I was going to ask you that exact question. So you believe that there’s a good chance the US Supreme Court will hear this case?
ROSEN:
Exactly, I agree. It has far-reaching effects on the nation. Other states are still facing issues. And the final major challenge to the election’s integrity was Bush v. Gore. Additionally, the court will interfere here just as it did there.
CHANGE:
Let’s discuss that, as there has been a lot of discussion in the last 24 hours about people drawing comparisons between this case and Bush v. Gore. It goes without saying that the 2000 election result was determined by that Supreme Court judgement. How helpful do you believe it is to connect this Colorado case to Bush v. Gore, and should the Supreme Court do so?
ROSEN:
It’s quite helpful. It’s also noteworthy that the court in Bush v. Gore clearly rejected the contention that Congress, not the courts, should have the final say on who wins the election and put an end to the recount. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court will come to a different decision if it overturns the Colorado court. It will maintain that Congress must make the decision because this is a political matter, which is exactly the opposite of what it did in Bush v. Gore. Therefore, the U.S. Supreme Court would behave quite differently in this election than it did in 2000, regardless of how you believe this court should be determined.
CHANGE:
Furthermore, since yesterday night, three justices on this Supreme Court have been mentioned in discussions; it should be emphasised that previous President Trump appointed three of them. If the U.S. Supreme Court decides to hear this Colorado case again, how much do you believe that should or will matter to their decision?
ROSEN: In Bush v. Gore, the U.S. Supreme Court expressed great scepticism over the Florida Supreme Court’s Democratic makeup, since they appeared to believe that we were attempting to rig the election. Additionally, Justice Stevens chastised the court majority in his dissent for having such doubts about the moral character of the judges on the lower courts. In actuality, that may be the case once more. However, the court will also be mindful of the severe blow it suffered in Bush v. Gore and will essentially work to avoid making that ruling at all.
The only relevant Supreme Court precedent in this case, decided by Chief Justice Chase during the Civil War. He did hold that Congress had to act before the disqualification provision should be enforced, which makes the case even more difficult. This is a very complicated case with many moving parts. If the majority decides to take action in this issue, it may do so by citing that case in an effort to keep the US Supreme Court out of the matter.
CHANGE: You observed that there is now a great deal of legal precedent about this specific 14th Amendment provision. As an expert in constitutional law, could you please provide your thoughts on this legal tactic of reshaping this presidential election through the use of a long-forgotten U.S. Constitutional provision?
ROSEN: Yes, it’s rather impressive. Words like historic and unparalleled are accurate in this context since it is true. The U.S. Supreme Court has been essential to elections, including presidential elections, ever since Bush v. Gore, which was in and of itself an extraordinary case that had never been litigated before.
