Going with C. Without explicit language to the president, they will need to interpret this to mean the president included, which may be up to anyone’s interpretation.
I feel it should, however it could be argued it doesn’t.
who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof
It cannot be argued in good faith. Talking about the presidency as an office has been a thing forever, and therefore the president is an officer. He’s also an officer just by the plain meaning of the word officer. I never heard one peep to the contrary until people started looking for a way for Trump to weasel his way out of the 14th amendment.
It’s all up to interpretation though, you might not see it, or you might have heard it in a way, but it can be argued. Similar to the lower court judge saying so.
Similarly one of the judge points out in the dissenting opinion there is no conviction of insurrection.
So I still think C will win, but A or B is a possibility too.
"In the absence of an insurrection-related conviction, I would hold that a request to disqualify a candidate under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a proper cause of action under Colorado’s election code. Therefore, I would dismiss the claim at issue here”
Yea fair enough. Just a different set of eyes is all. Thanks for the response!
The lack of conviction is prolly the biggest hurdle here which makes me wonder who would, or even could, bring those charges (even if the lower court explicitly stated he did). Jack smith has his hands full and while interesting to follow it’s not a direct case of questioning insurrection. Curious as to where it all leads.
End of the day, it starts to ask the question, which prolly ends at the Supreme Court no matter what.
Going with C. Without explicit language to the president, they will need to interpret this to mean the president included, which may be up to anyone’s interpretation.
I feel it should, however it could be argued it doesn’t.
It cannot be argued in good faith. Talking about the presidency as an office has been a thing forever, and therefore the president is an officer. He’s also an officer just by the plain meaning of the word officer. I never heard one peep to the contrary until people started looking for a way for Trump to weasel his way out of the 14th amendment.
It’s all up to interpretation though, you might not see it, or you might have heard it in a way, but it can be argued. Similar to the lower court judge saying so.
Similarly one of the judge points out in the dissenting opinion there is no conviction of insurrection.
So I still think C will win, but A or B is a possibility too.
Source
I see it just fine. I reject it as a bad faith argument. Any judge who entertains it is showing how corrupt they are.
Pointing to a lack of a conviction, OTOH, is at least a reasonable argument not based on pretending not to understand what words mean.
Yea fair enough. Just a different set of eyes is all. Thanks for the response!
The lack of conviction is prolly the biggest hurdle here which makes me wonder who would, or even could, bring those charges (even if the lower court explicitly stated he did). Jack smith has his hands full and while interesting to follow it’s not a direct case of questioning insurrection. Curious as to where it all leads.
End of the day, it starts to ask the question, which prolly ends at the Supreme Court no matter what.
Trump wss just committed to the continuity of government at all costs. Including the republic itself.
(That is the likely argument)