Opinion: Why the Colorado ruling disqualifying Trump was completely justified
The Colorado Supreme Court's decision to disqualify Trump from the 2024 ballot highlights the importance of upholding the US Constitution, emphasizing the rule of law A pivotal moment for democracy
The recent decision by the Colorado Supreme Court reaffirms the significance of the US Constitution.
John Avlon
The 14th Amendment, Section 3, prohibits individuals from holding elected or appointed office if they have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and then participated in an insurrection against the United States. On Tuesday night, the court ruled that former President Donald Trump should be removed from the state's ballot due to his actions.
The debate about whether the post-Civil War amendment could prevent Trump and other instigators from holding future office has continued since the January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol, despite the clean-up of debris. While there may be differing opinions on the matter, it has always been clear to me that the answer is a resounding yes.
The context of the amendment indicates that it was specifically meant to apply to future insurrections and rebellions, not just the Confederacy. One senator at the time explained that it was intended to be a permanent provision of the Constitution and serve as a preventative measure against future acts of treason and as a form of self-defense.
The argument that usually follows is whether January 6 can be classified as an insurrection. According to University of Maryland law professor and renowned 14th Amendment scholar Mark Graber: "From a constitutional perspective, theres no difference between trying to overturn an election by fraud, force or violenceall of them fall under insurrection."
President Donald Trump arrives at the "Stop The Steal" Rally on January 6, 2021 in Washington, DC.
Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images
There are reasons why the 14th Amendment should not disqualify Trump from holding future state or federal elected positions. For instance, a majority of the Senate voted in favor of his second impeachment on charges of inciting insurrection. Additionally, there is a precedent set by a court ruling that applied the 14th Amendment in the case of former New Mexico county commissioner, Cuoy Griffin, who was ousted from his position and barred from holding future elected positions due to his involvement in the Capitol riot.
There is a current example of using the 14th Amendment in relation to the insurrection attempt on January 6.
Despite Trump not physically participating in the storming of the Capitol, it is evident that his actions incited a riot with the aim of halting the election certification through violent and intimidating means (he has denied any wrongdoing). The complete wording of the 14th Amendment specifies that it applies to individuals who have provided "aid or comfort" to an insurrection or rebellion. At the very least, Trump did so through his tweets, speeches, and support of the larger scheme to overturn the election based on his falsehoods.
The decision of the Colorado Supreme Court clarified that it was important to apply the law as written, rather than being influenced by partisan desires. The majority emphasized the weight of the questions at hand and their responsibility to uphold the law without being swayed by public opinion. It has always seemed unreasonable to me that Section 3 does not apply to the president, as it clearly includes any civil or military office under the United States. This interpretation could also extend to members of Congress who collaborated with the insurrectionists. Notably, conservative legal scholars from the Federalist Society concluded that the 14th Amendment, Section 3, applies to Trump.
Get our free weekly newsletter
Sign up for CNN Opinions newsletter.
Join us on Twitter and Facebook for updates.
The case will now reach the US Supreme Court. With the court's conservative leaning, the outcome is uncertain. However, if justices prioritize philosophical consistency over partisan self-interest, those who believe in originalism or states' rights should support this invocation. The Constitution cannot be ignored, and the principle of equal justice under law should apply to presidents who betray their oath by attempting to overturn the government.
These criminal statutes and constitutional prohibitions are seldom utilized, reflecting the infrequency of insurrections in the United States. The 14th Amendment serves as a mechanism for addressing such instances, and without accountability, attempted coups are merely trial runs.
