The Colorado Department of State warned that it would be “a matter for the Courts” if the state’s Republican party withdrew from or ignored the results of the primary.
The Colorado Department of State warned that it would be “a matter for the Courts” if the state’s Republican party withdrew from or ignored the results of the primary.
He didn’t actually rule on this. There was no question of eligibility in that case, it was just whether being ineligible for the position gave the state the right to block him from the ballot. This one will hinge on whether or not the amendment applies to trump. And based on the wording of the amendment, unfortunately, they have multiple ways to reasonably argue it does not, and we all know the conservative majority will rule he is eligible.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States
Can’t hold any office. Pretty plain.
Senator and rep are both offices, why list those and not POTUS? I’m not saying I agree with this logic, but I don’t see it as unreasonable to interpret listing some high importance positions but not the most important position as not including that position.
But there is also the question of whether he even took an oath that counts for this amendment.
He certainly was not a member of Congress, and the court has argued before that we don’t elect “officers” so the POTUS wouldn’t fall under this.
Then there is even the more vague question as to whether or not he took part in an insurrection. I’m not as familiar with the legal arguments here, as it think the previous two are easier outs for them.
Believe me, I think he should be ineligible, I’m just pointing out that there are reasonable interpretations of the amendment as written that seem to give the courts an out, and I think they’ll take it.