BREAKING: COLORADO SUPREME COURT FINDS TRUMP INELIGIBLE FOR PRESIDENCY

Published on December 20, 2023
Duration: 12:41

This video analyzes the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to disqualify Donald Trump from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Host Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney, argues that a textualist interpretation of the amendment, particularly the phrase 'shall have engaged,' suggests it applies to events prior to its 1868 enactment, thus not covering modern events. He further contends that only Congress has the authority to determine an individual's engagement in insurrection, citing historical precedent like Griffin's Case, making state court rulings substantively irrelevant. The discussion emphasizes the importance of constitutional interpretation principles for defending Second Amendment rights.

Quick Summary

Constitutional attorney Mark Smith explains that the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling disqualifying Donald Trump under the 14th Amendment's Section 3 is legally questionable. He argues that a textualist interpretation suggests the amendment applies only to pre-1868 events and that only Congress, not state courts, can determine engagement in insurrection.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Colorado Trump Eligibility Decision Overview
  2. 00:43Host Introduction and Credentials
  3. 01:00Colorado Supreme Court Ruling Explained
  4. 02:0414th Amendment Section 3 Text Analysis
  5. 02:47Textualism and Historical Context
  6. 04:27Practical Effect and Stay of Ruling
  7. 07:16Ripple Effects and Collateral Estoppel
  8. 09:00President as 'Officer of the United States' Debate
  9. 10:52Congressional Role in Insurrection Findings
  10. 12:10Constitutional Interpretation and 2A Rights

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment regarding eligibility for office?

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states that no person who has previously taken an oath to support the Constitution and has since engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the U.S., or given aid to its enemies, can hold any office, civil or military, under the United States or any state. This is the basis for the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling on Donald Trump's ballot eligibility.

Who has the authority to determine if someone engaged in insurrection under the 14th Amendment?

According to legal scholars and historical precedent like Griffin's Case, only Congress has the constitutional authority to make a formal determination that an individual has engaged in insurrection under the 14th Amendment. State court decisions on this matter are argued to be substantively irrelevant without a prior Congressional finding.

What is the argument against applying the 14th Amendment's Section 3 to recent events?

A key argument is based on textualism and original intent. The phrase 'shall have engaged' in Section 3, enacted in 1868, is interpreted by some to apply only to past events, specifically the Civil War, and not to modern events occurring decades later. This challenges the applicability of the clause to recent political actions.

What was the immediate impact of the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling on Trump's ballot status?

The Colorado Supreme Court's ruling was immediately stayed, meaning it did not take effect right away. The stay was set to last until January 4, 2024, or until the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the case, ensuring Donald Trump remained on the ballot for the Republican primary in Colorado during that period.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from The Four Boxes Diner

View all →