In December, when the Colorado Supreme Court narrowly divided and excluded Trump from the state’s primary ballot based on the plain language of Article III, my initial reaction was, well, political and skepticism. It was spot on.
While I agreed that Trump did commit an insurrection, I thought it was in the best interest of the country to defeat him again in a free and fair election. Keeping him on the ballot for voters to decide is the path to long-term institutional stability and could ultimately force Republicans into liquidation.
Many people I respect continue to hold this view. But the more I read and listened, the more it became clear that Article 3 was aimed at exactly what Trump did. Its purpose is to protect our Republic from those who seek to tear apart our Constitution and destroy our institutions of self-government. What Trump did prior to the storming of the Capitol and on January 6, 2021 legally disqualifies him from being president.
The record makes clear that the legislators who drafted and enacted the amendment after the Civil War had not only Confederate leaders in mind, but also “the leaders of any future rebellion.” .
These were the words of Republican Sen. John B. Henderson of Missouri when he voted for the amendment in 1866. They are recorded in a powerful amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court by a group of prominent historians of the time. David Bright, Drew Gilpin Faust, Jill Lepore, John Fabian Witt.
The drafters of this amendment claim that they “not only wanted to prevent a resurgence of separatism, but also to protect future generations from insurrectionism.” It was intended to “prohibit any person from becoming President of the United States who has betrayed his oath to support the Constitution.”
They support these claims with a convincing 34-page explanation of what the drafters of the amendment intended and why they wrote it the way they did. The essay will prompt conservatives on the Supreme Court, which hears the case Thursday, to think deeply about the words they love: “originalism” and “originalism.”
Other history-oriented briefs made it difficult for me to stick to my earlier enlightened views. A group of 25 historians, including leading Civil War chronicler James McPherson and Black and Southern history expert Nell Irvin Painter, cited Congressional debates on Article III and found that This shows that it applies to the office of president. These provide clear evidence that “no additional act of Congress was required” to implement this provision, as some Trump defenders have argued.
Sherilyn Ifill, a Howard Law School professor and former president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, said the insurrection disqualification clause is a core purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment. “The Promise of Citizenship.” Its framers were preoccupied with “continued resistance by the Southern states to full black citizenship,” and that “black men who were loyal to the Union army…were disenfranchised, while disloyal former… They feared that white Confederates would be rewarded with votes.”
Trump is a modern-day embodiment of their fears, offering a “false narrative that undermines the credibility of votes cast in areas with high concentrations of black voters,” including Detroit, Philadelphia and Atlanta. she wrote.
Professors Carol Anderson and Ian Farrell wrote in a separate briefing that it is “ironic… that Trump is trying to prevent people from voting by saying it is anti-democratic” to exclude him from voting. This is because he bears the greatest responsibility for trying to do so.” subvert Democracy on January 6th. ” Efforts to overturn constitutional procedures should be distinguished from political protests, Ifill wrote, even if they “involve sporadic acts of violence.” Protesters are not the same as rioters trying to take over the government.
There are many contradictions regarding this issue. For example, some people believe that Trump should not be able to run. Opposition Because he is arguably the weakest Republican President Biden could face. Second, even if Colorado was right to block President Trump from voting, it shouldn’t be allowed to do so just because of states’ rights. This is a national issue, and the court should not ignore the underlying issues at issue, but my hunch is that the court may look for a way to punt.
The biggest contradiction is that excluding Trump from the ballot seems at first glance to be the antithesis of democracy. But the point of Section 3 is to protect constitutional democracy from those who already seek to destroy it. If that provision doesn’t apply to Trump, it doesn’t apply to anyone. The court will not disqualify him. He disqualified himself.