Donald Trump is the star case of the year at the United States Supreme Court. Although there are already several cases that directly or indirectly affect him, the appeal now presented by the former president will determine the electoral future of the United States. Trump has appealed to the justices over his disqualification from voting in Colorado's primary, a decision also made in Maine that could be repeated by other states. There are more than thirty whose participation is controversial. The nine judges at the top of the US judicial system must decide whether Trump should be barred from the election for his involvement in an insurrection.
The submission of the appeal was considered certain. The former president and current candidate had until Thursday, January 4, to appeal to the Supreme Court, which has a conservative supermajority of six justices, three of whom were appointed by Trump himself during his presidency. The call joins another call from the Colorado Republican Party. It also comes a day after another filed by Trump in the Maine Supreme Court challenging his exclusion from that state's primary. In both states, the primaries will take place on March 5, the so-called Super Tuesday, the day on which more than a third of the delegates who will nominate the Republican presidential candidate will be elected.
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled by a vote of four to three that the third section of the 14th Amendment should apply to Trump, declaring him ineligible to hold public office, that of president, and therefore not allowing his name to appear on the ballot should hold primaries for the presidential election on November 5, 2024.
This provision states: “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector for the election of President and Vice President, nor shall he hold any office, civil or military, under the authority of the United States or of any State which has previously done so. “has sworn to support the Constitution of the United States as a member of Congress, as an officer of the United States, or as a member of the legislative assembly of any state, or as the executive or judicial officer thereof, in any insurrection or rebellion against the United States or has the Aid or relief granted to enemies from within the country. He adds that this veto can be overridden by Congress with the approval of two-thirds of each chamber. It is an amendment passed in 1868, three years after the end of the Civil War, aimed at preventing Confederate rebels from occupying positions of power.
The 43-page appeal filed with the Supreme Court shares the arguments of those presented before the Maine Supreme Court. Appeals to the high court are framed as questions, and in this case the question is direct: “Was the Colorado Supreme Court wrong when it ordered President Trump to be disqualified from the 2024 presidential election?”
“In our system of 'government of the people by the people' [y] The Colorado verdict is not and cannot be right for the people. “This court must accept the motion to review this critically important matter, summarily reverse the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling and restore voters’ right to vote for the candidate of their choice,” the brief states.
Join EL PAÍS to follow all the news and read without restrictions.
Subscribe to
“The question of eligibility for the office of President of the United States is properly reserved for consideration and determination by Congress, and not by state courts. By considering the question of President Trump's eligibility and barring him from the vote, the Colorado Supreme Court usurped the authority of Congress,” the lawyers argue.
The appeal says the Colorado court mischaracterized President Trump's role in the events of January 6, 2021. “It was not an 'insurrection' and President Trump did not in any way participate in an 'insurrection,'” he points out.
Trump's lawyers believe the 14th Amendment prohibits certain people from “holding certain offices, [pero] not that they will be presented to them or that they will be selected for them.” They also point out that this does not apply to the former president, as this position is not specifically mentioned in the standard. They point out that the positions are listed in descending order, from senator to all civilian or military positions, but without mentioning the name of the tenant of the White House. That the position of electors or delegates voting for the president is explicitly cited, but the president is not mentioned, and that this is included as any “civilian position” contradicts common sense, they argue.
Additionally, it applies to anyone who participated in an insurrection as an “official of the United States,” a term that, according to its interpretation, does not apply to the president. They point out that this expression appears in three other constitutional provisions and that the President is excluded from this language in all of them. Curiously, the former president's lawyers in the New York fraud case said the case should be moved to federal court because Trump was an “officer of the United States,” and prosecutors successfully argued to the contrary.
Another argument from Trump's legal team is that he did not take an “oath to support the Constitution” when he took office, but that the president's oath is to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution.
[Noticia de última hora. Habrá actualización en breve]
Follow all international information on Facebook and Xor in our weekly newsletter.