2024-02-07 20:22:15
They remain nine months until the US presidential elections but this Thursday will be lived in Supreme Court Washington, a moment that could be defining not only for the electoral process, but for the political future of Donald Trump and, more importantly, the country.
At 10 in the morning (4:00 p.m. in mainland Spain) The nine justices of the High Court (six conservatives appointed by Republicans, including three by Trump himself, and three progressives) will hear the arguments of the parties in the appeal that the former president and Republican favorite has made to the veto that the Supreme Court imposed on him in December. of Colorado to appear on that state’s primary ballots.
In that decision, Trump was considered a insurrectionist and therefore disqualified from being president again under the section 3 of the 14th Amendment, a “disqualification clause” that until now the Supreme Court had never addressed. And the High Court now has in its hands the most important political decision of the last quarter of a century, since in 2000, by a 5-4 vote, he handed over the presidency to George W. Bush on Al Gorea sentence that gave a blow to his reputationwhich has only continued to deteriorate since then under shadows of extreme politicization and ethical scandals.
These are the elements and keys of a case, a view and possible decisions where law and politics collide, which has broken traditional lines between conservatives and progressives on the legal spectrum (with some conservatives supporting Trump’s disqualification). The consequences are unpredictable but they will have in any case a monumental significanceespecially in a polarized and radicalized country, which already experienced the assault on the Capitol on January 6, 2021 and where the spectrum of possible violence It’s even more triggered now.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment
Approved in 1868three years after the civil war ended, the Amendment 14which mainly addresses rights of citizenshipincludes that section that stipulates that no person may hold a civil or military public office who, having previously held a position in which he served oath to support the Constitution of USA, “has participated in a insurrection or rebellion against it, or given help or comfort to its enemies.”
The text, which also gives Congress room to avoid disqualification if approved by two-thirds majorities in both chambers, was then intended to prevent the Confederates from returning to power but it was also written with margin to cover future insurrections.
Your language does not expressly include the word “president” but “officer” (public office), and that is one of the central elements now of the legal debate.
The case
Last summer, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, two conservative legal scholars, published an extensive 126-page article in which, analyzing the third section of the 14th Amendment, they considered that Trump was disqualified from being president again due to theactions he took to try to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 election, that converged on January 6, 2021 with the assault on the Capitol.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a progressive group in the capital, raised in Colorado on behalf of four Republican voters and two independents from the state a lawsuit in the state asking that he be banned from the ballots.
In November, a judge agreed with the idea that Trump had been behind an insurrection, but did not consider that the section applied to the president because he was not considered an “officer.”
The voters then appealed tol State Supreme Court that, in a vote 4-3 (with all justices appointed by Democrats), agreed with them and did consider that Trump was banned by the Constitution to be president again, so he cannot appear on the primary ballots.
They left the decision on hold while they proceeded with the appeal that has reached the Supreme Court, which is also awaiting Maine, where the Secretary of State has also imposed a veto on Trump).
Trump’s arguments
The defending Trump considers several arguments. They denyFor example, that what happened on January 6 was a insurrection. Although there are more than 1,200 defendants for the assault on the Capitol and more than 850 convicted, none have been charged with insurrection charges. Trump himself, who faces two of his four criminal cases for actions against the legitimate 2020 results, He has not been charged with that charge either. and in his second impeachment trial, an impeachment where he did face one for inciting her, he was exonerated thanks to the votes of the Republicans.
His defense also argues that the president not an “officer” of the USA and that does not take an oath to “support” the Constitution. In addition, they say that Congress would have to pass legislation to implement the 14th Amendment, they say that The veto it includes is to hold a position and not to be a candidate or elected and they say the State Supreme Court cannot interfere with the method Colorado has chosen to select its candidates.
The arguments against Trump
Faced with Trump’s arguments, voters assure that he did encourage the assault on the Capitol with his actions and words, explicit and implicit, and that harangued the masses who believed his false claims of fraud. They cite, for example, his calls that day to “fight like hell” or the tweets he posted when the assault had already begun criticizing his vice president, Mike Pence, who refused to participate in the plot so as not to certify the results.
Regarding the language of the amendment, they defend that the word “officer” does include the president, emphasizing that About 20 times the Constitution cites the presidency as an “office.” And although his oath at the inauguration does not include the word “support” regarding the Constitution, it does commit him to “protect, preserve and defend.”
Several reports have also been presented to the Supreme Court defending Trump’s disqualification, including one from experts in democracy. “Removing a popular candidate from consideration (of voters) can fuel the distrust in the system But that concern is equally valid if the court does not act: distrust in the system is precisely what has been fueled by the insurrection and allegations of fraud perpetuated by the former president,” they wrote.
The Supreme Court’s options
The Supreme Court can take many ways in this complicated case. You could, for example, take a decision that only affects Colorado, without resolving the general issue or do it permanently. That could happen, for example, if he decided that the Republican Party in the state is the one that has the first amendment right to choose its nominees.
The Supreme Court could also accept Trump’s arguments that the presidency is not covered by the disqualification clause, or that he never took an oath subjecting him to that part of the Constitution, or that Congress is the one who should decide. who is banned from office.
When can you expect a decision
The Supreme Court has allocated 40 minutes for Trump’s lawyer, 30 for the Colorado voters and 10 for the Colorado secretary of state for this Thursday, although the hearing is expected to last until from three o’clock.
The judges’ questions will be scrutinized to try to anticipate their position in the case.
It is not known when they could announce a decision, but in the Bush v Gore case they issued it the next day to listen to the parties.
On February 12, primary ballots begin to be sent in Coloradowhich celebrates its primaries on March 5Super Tuesday.
Trump’s defense and the former president himself have called for a quick decision, warning that efforts to keep him off the ballot “threaten to leave tens of millions without the right to vote of Americans” (73 voted for him in 2020) and ensuring that if other states follow in Colorado’s footsteps “the chaos will be unleashed.” chaos y absolute disorder”.
The other party responds by assuring that “we already saw the absolute disorder that Trump unleashed when he was on the ballot and lost.” And legal experts who have presented a document in favor of the plaintiffs have warned: “since the civil war, the United States has not confronted so much risk of destabilizing political instability and perhaps this court has never been in such a clear position to avoid it.”
#future #Trump #Supreme #Court #keys #historic #transcendental #view #veto #Colorado #ballots