The Clash between Constitutional Textualism and Voter Empowerment
A Colorado lawsuit is raising questions about whether Donald Trump should be disqualified from serving as president again based on the 14th Amendment. The case hinges on a clash between constitutional textualism and voter empowerment.
Constitutional Textualism vs. Voter Empowerment
The Colorado lawsuit aiming to prevent Donald Trump from appearing on the 2024 ballot is a battle between constitutional textualism and voter empowerment. If one carefully reads the 14th Amendment, it can be argued that Trump should be disqualified from holding office again. Section 3 of the amendment states that anyone who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States should not 'hold any office'. Trump's actions on January 6, 2021, when he encouraged a mob that attacked Congress, align with this definition.
There are legal technicalities surrounding the interpretation of the amendment, including whether 'officer' refers to appointed or elected officials. However, many legal scholars, including some conservatives, believe that Trump falls within the scope of the amendment. They argue that the amendment's text and its goal to be comprehensive make it clear that Trump should be barred from future office. William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, both members of the conservative Federalist Society, reached this conclusion in a recent law review article.
The Democratic Argument
The primary philosophical argument against the lawsuit is a democratic one. If the American people do not deem Trump fit for the presidency, they have the power to vote against him in the upcoming election. Additionally, the Senate had the opportunity to convict Trump during the impeachment trial for his actions on January 6 and bar him from holding future office, but it did not do so.
However, the Colorado Supreme Court, in a 4-3 vote, has ruled that Trump cannot appear on the state's primary ballot. Similar cases are now being presented to other courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to have the final say. Barring a leading candidate from running for president could disenfranchise a large portion of the country, leading to a potentially 'profoundly anti-democratic ruling.'
Debating Autocratic Figures and Voter Restrictions
The lawyers arguing against Trump's eligibility present a counterargument. They argue that the Constitution already restricts voters' judgment in various ways, such as age restrictions and term limits for presidents. They also cite a case in New Mexico where a county commissioner was barred from holding office due to his involvement in the January 6 attack. Furthermore, they claim that Trump poses a unique threat to the national interest that no politician has in decades. They point to his encouragement of violence, labeling of critics as traitors, constant lies, use of the presidency for personal enrichment, promises of repressing political rivals, and rejection of foundational democratic principles. Their argument is that Trump epitomizes the type of autocratic figure the Constitution seeks to prevent from holding power, even if voters may feel differently in the present moment.
These are the terms of the debate in the weeks ahead, as courts and legal experts weigh in on whether Trump should be allowed to run for president again.
