Below is my column in the New York Post on the next step in the effort to disqualify former president Donald Trump in the 2024 election. I believe that the Colorado opinion will be set aside, but it is not finality but clarity that we need from the United States Supreme Court.
Here is the column:
In his book Profiles of Courage, John F. Kennedy discussed figures who answered the call of history and how such defining moments are “an opportunity that sooner or later is presented to us all.โ That moment will now be presented to nine justices of the United States Supreme Court after a divided decision of the Colorado Supreme Court to disqualify Donald Trump in the 2024 election.
The test for the U.S. Supreme Court is not just what they should do, but how they should do it. As an institution, the Court is often called upon to seize such moments to bring unity and clarity on our core values. That is why this insidious opinion must not only be unequivocally but unanimously overturned.
The Colorado decision to bar Donald Trump from the ballot will be overturned because it is wrong on the history and the language of the 14th Amendment.
Dead wrong.
The question is whether the US Supreme Court will speak with one voice, including the three liberal justices.
As with the three Democratic state justices who refused to sign off on the Colorado opinion, these federal justices can now bring a moment of unity not just for the court but the country in rejecting this shockingly anti-democratic theory.
For years, the disqualification theory has been treated like some abstract parlor game for law professors.
While Democrats called for the disqualification of 120 House members, it was treated as a fringe theory.
It has now lost its charm as a legal brain teaser.
As I haveย previously written, the disqualification of Trump is based on the use of a long-dormant provision in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
After the Civil War, House members were outraged to see Alexander Stephens, the Confederate vice president, seeking to take the oath with an array of other former Confederate senators and military officers.
They had all previously taken the same oath and then violated it to join a secession movement that claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans.
That was a true rebellion.
January 6, 2021, was a riot.
That does not excuse those who committed crimes that day โ but it was not an insurrection.
The majority on the Colorado Supreme Court adopted sweeping interpretations of every element of the decision to find that Trump not only incited an insurrection, but can be disqualified under this provision.
It does not matter that Trump has never been charged with even incitement or that he called for his supporters to go to the Capitol to protest โpeacefully.โ
In finding that Trump led an actual insurrection, the four justices used speeches going back to 2016 to show an effort to rebel before Trump was ever president.
There are ample grounds to summarily toss this opinion to the side.
However, that would not answer the call of this historic moment.
What these four justices did was a direct assault on our democratic process in seeking to bar the most popular candidate in the upcoming election.
Whatever the view of Trump, this is a decision that should rest with the voters.
No only are these four justices seeking to bar the votes of millions of voters (even barring the counting of write-in votes), but they are doing so in the name of democracy.
It is the ballot cleansing that is usually associated with authoritarian countries like Iran, where voters are protected from โunworthyโ candidates.
Justice Robert Jackson once observed that he and his colleagues โare not final because we are infallible, we are infallible because we are final.โ
A decision on Colorado could put this theory to rest by the sheer finality of the appeal.
However, it is not the finality that is needed at this moment. We need clarity. Clarity of purpose and principle.
The Supreme Court plays a unique role in our system at times like these.
It must at times defy us in rejecting racism as cases such as Brown v. Board of Education.
At other times, it has protected in rejecting government overreach as in cases such as Katz v. United States, demanding warrants to overcome the reasonable expectation of privacy.
This is a time where it can unify us.
The court holds the ultimate โbully pulpitโ that can educate citizens on what defines us as a people.
Most people understand intuitively that what these four justices did in Colorado was wrong.
However, the court can speak as one โ conservatives and liberals โ in reaffirming the core values discarded by these state justices.
In that sense, it may be the greatest test of Chief Justice John Roberts.
Roberts once observed that โthe most successful chief justices help their colleagues speak with one voice.โ
Past chief justices from John Marshall to Earl Warren struggled to secure unanimous votes on fundamental cases to reaffirm such defining values.
The court could help unify this country in a way that may be unparalleled in its history.
It can show that justices who hold vastly different ideological views can be unified on core principles.
It can remind us that, as citizens, the Constitution is ultimately not a covenant with the government but with each other.
It is a leap of faith that, as a free people, we can decide our shared destiny and protect our shared identity.
The moment has come for nine justices to speak in one voice.
An American voice that transcends the personalities and divisions of our time.
It is a voice that speaks not to what divides us but what defines us as a people.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University, where he teaches a course on the Constitution and the Supreme Court.
The main argument against this is โIn a democracy we let the voters decide.โ However this argument falls apart when the candidate in question has already been show to disregard the results of an election.
A core part of freedom is the ability to chose your own political leaders, otherwise one would live under a dictatorship. Had Trump succeeded in doing what he tried to do and stayed in power after Jan 20, he would have literally ended the US as a free country.
What Trump did was a direct assault on our democracy. Keeping him off the ballot ensures he wonโt be successful next time.
He absolutely is disqualified under 14A.
Steaming turd for Metamucil Sammy^^^^
“However this argument falls apart when” people can’t be trusted to elect the Left’s candidate.
There. Fixed it for you.
Professor, getting eight would be close enough.
There is one affirmative action woman judge on the court that can’t even tell you “What a WOMAN IS”.
John Roberts had his defining moment and decided that he would become a legislator instead of a judge.
What a country!
A useful history on 14 A s3: https://constitutionalcommentary.lib.umn.edu/article/amnesty-and-section-three-of-the-fourteenth-amendment/
Bravo, Professor, thank you for this. Even contrarians like Enigma agree via the last article – this was unconscionable on the part of CO. We are all better than that, and it is becoming nigh impossible to view these activist judges with anything but disdain. Imagine where we’d be if the dems had successfully packed the courts!
Well said professor.
Iran. That is exactly what the woke leftists that have taken over the Democrat party want.
Only their approved candidates may be on the ballot.
Only their approved speech may be spoken by their approved MSM outlets.
Only their approved actions against democracy is approved to save democracy.
Putin recently announced he will run for re-election. His opponents are always mysteriously killed. See how that works?
Johnthan fully agree but will the DEMS get to the 3 DEMS and instruct them to vote against to continue this chaos/disaster. I can see a 9 zip vote. The Pollster Frank Luntz says the DEMs are paying a heavy price by these games of the Left-Wing Radical DEMS led by Lawerence Tribe and Jamie Raskin legal advise along with Soros. Trump will surge based on Luntz polling. The centrist DEMS need to take back the party before the Left-Wing DEMS and the radicals drive the party over the cliff.
“January 6, 2021, was a riot. That does not excuse those who committed crimes that day โ but it was not an insurrection.”
More than one judge disagrees. Including the judge who ruled on a 14 A s3 challenge to Couy Griffin, who participated in J6. Griffin lost. Likewise, there was a trial on this issue in the CO case. Trump, as intervenor, was able to present evidence. He lost.
JT doesn’t bother to engage with the legal details of either case. For a legal blog, JT is often light on the legal discussion.
“this is a decision that should rest with the voters.”
No, actually, legal questions such as this one should be resolved by the courts. If the voters are sufficiently frustrated by the ruling, the power rests with the people to amend the Constitution, as has occurred more than once in our history. This is the way our legal checks and balances work.
There is no need to as mend the Constitution. Section 5 clearly states “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”. If there are any judges, scholars or commentators who cannot now understand the meaning of this text, there is no point in adding any wording.
For the umpteenth time, there is no requirement that Congress pass legislation before the provision takes effect. It may be their affirmative duty to do so, but it does not mean that the provision is inoperable until they pass legislation (as documented by the historical usage of the provision).
Think of it this way – it does NOT say, “This provision does not take effect until Congress enforces, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
Words matter. As do omissions of words.
“there is no requirement that Congress pass legislation before the provision takes effect.”
Congress did you f*cking moron.
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Trump intended to influence electors, their decisions, and their votes.
Trump admonished his audience to “peacefully and patriotically” make their voices heard.
Portions of his audience were led, in an unrelated incident, to riot with help from the FBI.
Trump did not incite, set on foot, assist, or engage in rebellion or insurrection.
That they have the power to pass legislation does not make it incumbent on them to do so. You’re the one who doesn’t understand the text.
More than one judge disagrees. Including the judge who ruled on a 14 A s3 challenge to Couy Griffin, who participated in J6. Griffin lost.
He was never charged with insurrection.
Which is irrelevant to his having been found in court to have engaged in insurrection.
14A s3 does not say “found guilty of” or even “charged with.” It says “engaged in.”
They’ll kick the can a little.
– Agree to hear the case in Spring and let him be on that particular ballot (and any others where this becomes a primary-season issue – looking at you Maine)
– Release a 6-3 opinion in May based on some very narrow grounds (e.g., he was never convicted of or even charged with “insurrection”)
They’ll kick the can a little.
– Agree to hear the case in Spring and let him be on that particular ballot (and any others where this becomes a primary-season issue – looking at you Maine)
– Release a 6-3 opinion in May based on some very narrow grounds (e.g., he was never convicted of or even charged with “insurrection”)
He doesn’t have to be convicted or even charged with “insurrection.” The 14th Amendment says “engaged in,” not “charged with” or “convicted of.”
Who gets to decide if Trump engaged in insurrection? You, me, a journalist, a single judge, congress? Does not then the amendment imply an charge of insurrection along with a guilty judgement. If the 14th amendment prohibited a murderer from being president, would someone be immediately disqualified by a single accusation or implicit in the amendment would be someone you was not only accused of murder but found guilty by trial.
Additionally, I think the argument that the 14th amendment still applies today is because it doesn’t specifically mention members of the confederacy. Hence the 14th amendment applies to an act of insurrection. While I believe that, by the same argument then the Amnesty Act of 1872 ought also apply today.
If the original judgment is appealed, aa series of judges get to decide, as has been the case here.
“Does not then the amendment imply an charge of insurrection along with a guilty judgement”
The 14th Amendment does not say “charged with,” much less “convicted of.” It says “engaged in.”
Replacing “insurrection” with “murder” leads to something non-analogous. People accused of murder have a right to a jury trial. But by the 7th Amendment, they do not have a right to a jury trial for assessing whether they engaged in insurrection. Trump had a trial in CO. He lost.
Apparently you believe facts to be turds, and you’d rather live in your delusional mind.
Your position. Out of 100’s charged and sentenced for Jan 6 activities, not a single person earned even a charge of insurrection. That means President Trump supported an insurrection that saw exactly ZERO insurrectionists. With smoke and mirrors, you actually get smoke and mirrors, but with Jan 6, we have an insurrection, and no insurrectionists.
14A s3 does not say “found guilty of” or even “charged with.” It says “engaged in.”
While I agree with Jonathan’s distaste, I do not agree with the basis on which it should be over-turned unanimously. Rather I believe that because the Amendment intrinsically must assume a conviction for the crime(s) of “insurrection” or “helping an enemy,” and there has not even been a charge pressed against Trump in a court-of-law alleging that crime and offering him both the opportunity to rebut and trial before a jury, the Colorado district court and the Colorado Supreme Court were both wrong on the basis of “denial of due process” including he constitutional right to trial by jury.
People do not have a constitutional right to a trial by jury in all civil cases. See the 7th Amendment. Discussion here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-7/identifying-cases-requiring-a-jury-trial
What due process right was Trump denied? Life, liberty, or property?
This Dirty politics reminds me of the โ Days of Governor Huey Long โ here in my Bayou State ,
โELโ Louisiana exactly like El Salvador !
This is Professor Turley pleading for his fellow Democrats to not look like partisan hacks and bring a permanent stain of shame onto the party and onto the entire judicial system. We’ll see what happens. I’m pretty confident the Dems will align themselves with the Colorado Reichsjuristen.
In paragraph 3, looks like someone forgot to delete “Below is.”
If ever there was a time for SCOTUS to reply as one voice is on this issue.
Time to start Jailing Thousands of Criminal Fascist Democrats. I am think a Nuremberg Trial.
all conspirators of the Russian Hoax
all the conspirators of the cover up Bidens crimes, laptop, etc
These lawless judges and DA.
Anyone helping Illegals is PURE treason….JAIL THEM ALL!
But Most importantly TAKE AWAY THE MONEY! Democrats get MORE money the WORSE they make Cities. Don’t give to them!
End all Federal Aid to colleges, cities and states! Let them fund their failure. Today WE REWARD failure…and they STEAL ever more
Think Newark NJ…60 years of STEALING rescue money to make it EVER WORSE!
any
I suppose we will all now see whether our 3 affirmative action justices are in the mold of Claudine Gay.
they are!
This is GROUP Think on the level of Germany 1930’s, USSR, Mao’s China, North Korea, etc
Every Democrat on the Supreme Court is a willing Fascist… And GUTLESS Republicans will equivocate
Used to be a hardcore Democrat until Biden. Now my ex-party destroys democracy to in their words protect democracy. In the new Democratic party the loudest lie is the truth, and totalitarian actions are fine as long as it benefits them. Now I am an Independent that is ready to vote not for Trump but not for Biden. Need young and honest leaders, this country is at risk
Remember Everyone VOTES against someone…not FOR someone!
Personally I like Vivek but you need an ARMY of People. That was Trump problem…he was ROLLED by the SWAMP last time!
How does Vivek find thousands of HONEST people for appointments in DC?
It is gobsmacking to me that the Democrat Party has 47% approval. Granted, I am biased. I’ve despised the bureaucratic welfare state imposed on the country by Democrats during the Great Depression, so I’ve hated the Democrat Party most of my entire voting life. They intend, with their policies, to destroy the livelihood of every single person who supports their family in the coal, oil, natural gas, pipeline, refinery, nuclear and other peripheral industries. They run around telling tens of millions of white people struggling to get by that they benefit from “white privilege”. They promote homosexuality, cross dressing, killing preborn children in government run schools. They align with Big Tech and Big Business to censor dissenting speech. They openly campaign on using government force to buy votes from black Americans and call it “reparations” because blacks were once enslaved by Democrats. They want to buy the votes of college students by transferring their student loan debts to taxpayers.
It would be amazing if 10% of a decent society supported that garbage. But that 47% do just show how corrupt and evil they’ve conditioned the electorate to be.
Well said. Fingers crossed
Using the flawed legal logic in CO [supposedly, their Sc of State can also ban Trump from being a write-in] Biden should be barred also; after all, Biden openly admitted to blackmailing Ukraine to dump its prosecutor or HE would stop money/aid] AND he’s under investigation for other crimes.
Biden and his family should JUST be IN JAIL! There is a MOUNTAIN of evidence. The DOJ, IRS, FBI, etc are 100% corrupt for Democrats.
Plan to end Democrat CENTALIZED Power, which is Destroying America, which is THEIR PLAN!
TAKE AWAY Democrat (UniParty) Power
-Cut 50% of Fed gov spending
-Move 75% of DC to Heartland
-Remove entire leadership of DOJ, IRS, DHS and FBI
-5% tax Gross wall street trans & money goes offshore
-Tax all non-profits anyone gets $200k: colleges, hospitals, etc
-End fed aid/loans cities, states & college, make them fund themselves
-Remove tax credits renewables, affordable housing, etc
-Jail Russian Hoax, COVID liars & Biden protectors, etc
-Ban public union/company $ politics, only voters can fund politics
-voting 1 day, in person, with ID, I don’t care if you vote, I care if you cheat
– 12 year limit on federal office….judge, president, senate, congress
– Roundup all illegals to raise wages and give Americans Jobs
– END all bonuses financial world till every dime of FED money is paid off
Colorado or any other State(s) that care to join in the same ruling, it does not matter. (Because)
People are going to vote for Donald Trump:
1. As a Write-In Candidate
2. Local County Election Commissioners will put the Name on the Ballot (Local Authority Override due to Civic pressure). This is similar to Local Sheriffs overriding enforcement of Federal Gun control legislation.
3. It doesnโt matter to most people if Donald Trump is convicted and wearing an Orange Jumpsuit. They will Vote for him regardless.
๐๐ฎ๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐ฆ๐ ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ ๐ฌ๐๐ฒ๐ฌ ๐๐ข๐ฌ๐ฌ๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ข ๐๐๐งโ๐ญ ๐๐๐ซ ๐ฅ๐จ๐๐๐ฅ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฆ ๐ก๐๐ฅ๐ฉ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐ง๐๐จ๐ซ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ซ๐๐ฅ ๐ ๐ฎ๐ง ๐ฅ๐๐ฐ๐ฌ
By Ariane de Vogue and Devan Cole ~ Fri October 20, 2023
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/20/politics/missouri-federal-gun-laws-supreme-court/index.html
This action in Colorado will be the โbeginning of the endโ of the Electoral College. If the Candidate is not tabulated in areas that the ban occurred and the calculus for the Electoral College corrupt. โ Then there is going to be a Law Suite that will end the Electoral College.
Steaming turd^^^^^
+100
+100