A clash over Trump’s disqualification lands at the Supreme Court
THE 14th AMENDMENT is no stranger to America’s Supreme Court. Many of the most controversial questions to reach the justices—from abortion rights to affirmative action—turn on interpretations of “due process” or the promise of “equal protection” found in the Reconstruction-era text. But 156 years after the amendment was ratified, the court now has its first occasion to grapple with a clause that some believe disqualifies Donald Trump from becoming president again.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars those who have sworn an oath to uphold the constitution from holding federal or state office if they have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the constitution or “given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof”. This rule was designed to keep former Confederate rebels from the levers of power after the Civil War. Few dispute that it applies with equal force to insurrectionists today. The open question is whether Mr Trump’s attempts to secure himself a second term despite losing the 2020 election—culminating in the riot at the Capitol three years ago—count as an insurrection and so disqualify him from trying to recapture the White House the old-fashioned way.
A flurry of conflicting answers to this question has emerged in recent weeks. On December 19th the Colorado Supreme Court released a ruling that removes Mr Trump from the ballot for the state’s Republican primary on March 5th. Nine days later, Shenna Bellows, Maine’s secretary of state, announced that Mr Trump’s role in the January 6th attack made him ineligible to be listed on her state’s primary ballot. (Both decisions are on hold, for now, as appeals proceed.) Ms Bellows’s ruling followed an administrative proceeding in which several residents of the state challenged Mr Trump’s inclusion. She wrote that, although no one in her position “has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot…
2024-01-02 16:09:06
Original from www.economist.com
rnrn