The Democrats' latest effort to weaponize the law to make Donald Trump unelectable—and broke—in the 2024 election cycle heads to the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday. The Democrats' stated purpose the moment Trump was elected was to "kick his a**" and "keep Trump unpopular." Yet every new lawsuit against Trump has had the opposite effect.
That hasn't dimmed Democrats' hope to get Trump, however. The Supreme Court now becomes the center ring in their Get Trump circus on Thursday. The Democrats' hope lies in the Colorado Supreme Court ruling that Trump should be kicked off the ballot because the court reckoned he was an "insurrectionist."
Democrats in Colorado, Maine, and other states contend that Donald Trump was an "insurrectionist" who led an armed rebellion against the U.S. government on Jan. 6, 2021. If the nation's highest court somehow seriously considers the question of insurrection and Trump is assumed to be an insurrectionist, he could be banned forever from running for office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Some legal scholars say it's unlikely to come to that because a president isn't an officer covered by the 14th Amendment. More on that in a moment.
The former president has never been charged, much less found guilty, of insurrection. The closest thing to a charge was the sham second impeachment of Trump, in which Nancy Pelosi's team threw together a "visceral argument" to get Trump. They used videos of rioters, Trump tweets, one of which was him telling people to go home, and news reports, which we all know are unimpeachable sources of first drafts of historical truth. Trump was not convicted in the Senate.
Special counsel Jack Smith has never charged Trump with insurrection.
The case before the Supreme Court, 23-719 Donald J. Trump v. Norma Anderson, et al., however, may never come to that.
Sadly, people like this woman who tried to take Trump off the Washington State ballot last month, believe that the Colorado Supreme Court fired the starter's pistol for all other states to get Trump off the ballot.
https://twitter.com/VictoriaTaft/status/1747431112400593075?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
But here's the promised surprise for those who haven't followed this issue closely. Despite all their wish-casting, the left may never get their Get Insurrectionist Trump moment.
As many legal scholars have argued, presidents aren't even covered by the language of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey writes in the Wall Street Journal that the left's faith in the insurrection clause is "seriously misplaced." Mukasey says that two questions must be solved before Trump can be assessed as an "insurrectionist."
A good deal of attention has focused thus far on whether the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, was an “insurrection or rebellion” and, if so, whether Mr. Trump “engaged” in it. Those questions, however, need not be answered until two preliminary questions of law are addressed: Is the presidency an "office... under the United States,” and was the presidential oath Mr. Trump swore on Jan. 20, 2016, to support the Constitution taken “as an officer of the United States”?
Mukasey points out that the president isn't the definition of an "office" under the 14th Amendment.
In U.S. v. Mouat (1888), the Supreme Court ruled that “unless a person in the service of the government... holds his place by virtue of an appointment... he is not, strictly speaking, an officer of the United States.” Chief Justice John Roberts reiterated the point in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010): “The people do not vote for the ‘Officers of the United States.’ ”
A clearer explanation comes from Constitutional scholar Steven Calabrisi, who argues on the pages of the Volokh Conspiracy at Reason Magazine that all you have to do is look at the history of the 14th Amendment, which was written in response to the Civil War—an actual armed insurrection.
The words "President or Vice President" were deliberately edited out of the final version of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. This, together with the disqualification of presidential electors and vice presidential electors who have engaged in "insurrection or rebellion," makes it clear that the Framers' of Section 3 did not intend for it to apply to presidents or vice presidents who engaged in insurrection.
[...]This fact is further confirmed by the Appointments Clause of Article II, Section 2, which says [The President shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall appoint Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States." The President does not appoint himself so obviously he is not an Officer of the United States under the Appointments Clause.
[...]Moreover, the Commission clause of Article II, Section 3 says that "[T he President] shall" i.e. must, "Commission all the Officers of the United States." No President has EVER commissioned himself or his Vice President either before or after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. The President is obviously not an Officer of the United States for the purposes of the Commission clause.
There are dozens of amicus (friend of the court) briefs filed on behalf of all the parties arguing on Thursday. In one of the briefs, Trump's former rival Vivek Ramaswamy argues that the president is not an "officer" referred to in Section 3. He also argued that Democrats "have resorted to antidemocratic methods because they doubt that they can beat him in a fair election." He argues that if the U.S. Supreme Court blesses Colorado's interpretation of the 14th Amendment it "will warp incentives for state decision-makers and voters alike."
In another brief, the Public Interest Legal Foundation, headed by PJ Media colleague J Christian Adams, along with Hans Von Spakowsky, argued that "rebellion, and the absence of any implementing legislation by Congress providing for enforcement. These questions are vitally important as states should not add qualifications for the Presidency beyond what the U.S. Constitution set forth."
The Colorado Republican State Central Committee argued that the 14th Amendment gives Congress, not the Colorado Supreme Court, the ability to disqualify a presidential candidate. It also argues that the 14th Amendment is not "self-executing,"
Famed libertarian constitutional scholar Richard Epstein agrees, calling the self-executing argument "a red herring" and hoping that when the Supreme Court takes up this case it "should not decide it on the merits, for the entire controversy should not be decided by any court at all."
That would spoil the fun for the lawfare crowd, which created this circus.
One of the several organizations David Brock stood up to get Trump, CREW, a "government accountability" group, is behind the 14th Amendment effort. Back in 2017 when he disseminated his infamous memo on how to "kick Trump's a**," Brock sought to get rid of Trump through impeachment. He also conceived of the idea of working with big platforms to go after publications such as PJ Media "to pressure Facebook and Google to further clamp down on false news stories." "False" stories according to leftists, that is.
via pjmedia