Rule of Law

RELEASE: Justices Grapple With Serious Questions, and Fourteenth Amendment’s Text and History Provide Answers

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Colorado Supreme Court this afternoon in Anderson v. Griswold, a case in which the Court is considering whether Donald Trump should be allowed to appear as a candidate on the Colorado ballot given his disqualification from office under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment, Constitutional Accountability Center Vice President Praveen Fernandes issued the following reaction:

The Justices of the Colorado Supreme Court grappled with numerous issues this afternoon, including whether the Disqualification Clause applies to the president and the presidency.  Fortunately, the text and enactment history of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment provide clear answers to that question, as we explained in the amicus brief we submitted to the Court.

Under the original public meaning of Section Three’s text, the presidency is an “office . . . under the United States” and the president is an “officer of the United States.” Indeed, sources contemporaneous to the Amendment’s drafting and ratification—including dictionary definitions and public discourse in newspapers at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s adoption—demonstrate that members of the public, including both supporters and opponents of the Disqualification Clause, understood the Clause to apply presidents, including potential future candidates like Jefferson Davis.

Any other reading would not only be at odds with the text of the Clause, but also would defy the Framers’ plan for the Disqualification Clause. The Framers felt that officers who violated their oaths of office in such a serious way could not and should not be trusted to hold office again. If the Framers worried about insurrectionist postmasters, it makes no sense to think they wouldn’t be worried about insurrectionist presidents.

Trump’s legal team tried to make much of the fact that the president takes a different oath than other officers, but the Framers were concerned with those who violated an oath of office, not with the particular oath they took. The president not only takes an oath to support the Constitution, but arguably takes an oath that expresses the strongest degree of support for the Constitution—an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Given the trial court’s finding that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection, these actions disqualify him from holding office.

##

Resources:

Case page in Anderson v. Griswold: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/anderson-v-griswold/

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a nonpartisan think tank and public interest law firm dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text, history, and values. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

##

More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
January 22, 2025

RELEASE: Justices Appear Poised to Reject Rule that Artificially Shields Police from Accountability

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Barnes v....
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Nebraska v. EPA

In Nebraska v. EPA, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is considering the legality of the EPA’s latest motor vehicle emissions standards. 
Rule of Law
January 20, 2025

RELEASE: Trump’s Shameful Pardons and Commutations Cannot Change the Facts of January 6th

WASHINGTON, DC – Upon reports that President Donald Trump has issued pardons and commutations for individuals...
By: Praveen Fernandes
Rule of Law
U.S. Supreme Court

Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research

In Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research, the Supreme Court is considering whether a federal law that requires the FCC to establish programs making internet access more affordable is unconstitutional under the nondelegation doctrine. 
Rule of Law
January 10, 2025

TV (C-SPAN): Elizabeth Wydra on Trump Sentencing in New York Hush Money Case

C-SPAN
[embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n7g_TJRor4[/embed] Constitutional Accountability Center's Elizabeth Wydra talked about President-elect Trump's sentencing in his New York...
Rule of Law
January 14, 2025

Civil Rights-Era Abuses Could Return to the FBI Under Kash Patel | Opinion

Newsweek
With the recent start of the 119th Congress and the imminent beginning of a second Trump administration,...
By: Praveen Fernandes