“There Was No Insurrection” – Both Sides Appeal Colorado 14th Amendment Ruling

Gabriel RomanNov 27, 2023

Minute Read

Former President Donald Trump and a liberal advocacy group both challenged a Colorado judge’s decision regarding Trump’s eligibility to be on the state’s ballot. The dispute centers on a constitutional interpretation. It has raised concerns about the limits of judicial and congressional power in determining a candidate’s eligibility.

Dispute Over Trump’s Candidacy in Colorado Escalates

Editorial credit: a katz / Shutterstock.

On Monday night, both a liberal group aiming to disqualify Donald Trump and Trump himself appealed a Colorado judge’s ruling. This action stems from Judge Sarah Wallace’s decision. She argued that, despite being accused of engaging in insurrection on January 6, 2021, Trump can remain on Colorado’s ballot.

Appeals Filed to the Colorado Supreme Court

Editorial credit: Epiglottis / Shutterstock.

These appeals were lodged with the Colorado Supreme Court. They challenged Judge Wallace’s ruling. This decision marks a continuation of setbacks for those using Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to hinder Trump’s candidacy. Trump supporters have praised this development, while his critics appear unhappy.

Michigan Group Joins Legal Battle

Echoing the actions in Colorado, a group in Michigan has initiated a similar legal challenge. They have filed an appeal with the state’s Supreme Court. This is part of a growing national trend of legal scrutiny over Trump’s eligibility. Many people question whether he should be allowed to run for the presidency in 2024.

The 14th Amendment’s Seldom Use

The constitutional provision in question primarily bars former Confederates from government roles. However, it has been rarely invoked since it was created after the Civil War. Its current application to a former president is both an unprecedented and controversial move for all involved.

Does the 14th Amendment Apply to Presidents?

The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington represent Republican and unaffiliated Colorado voters. They argued in their appeal that Judge Wallace made a mistake in her interpretation of the 14th Amendment. They argue that the provision’s intention to apply to presidents is clear and necessary.

Interpreting the Constitution

Editorial credit: Evgenia Parajanian / Shutterstock.

The debate over the 14th Amendment’s reach is key to the ongoing legal discourse. This Amendment specifically prohibits certain individuals, mainly those who have sworn an oath to the Constitution, from serving in Congress or federal offices if they have engaged in insurrection. However, it is unclear if this includes the President. Legal experts and historians are divided on whether this omission was intentional or an oversight.

Presidents and Insurrection

Editorial credit: Sharaf Maksumov / Shutterstock.

The appeal filed against the Colorado judge’s ruling focuses on this inconsistency. The appellants claim that allowing presidents who might lead an insurrection to retain the right to serve while barring any lower-level government workers who played minor roles is illogical. This argument highlights a potential oversight in the 14th Amendment.

Trump Challenges Insurrection Finding

Editorial credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.

In his appeal, former President Trump strongly disagrees with the finding that he engaged in insurrection. He emphasized the unusual nature of a state court judge making this conclusion rather than Congress. Trump’s challenge raises fundamental questions about the separation of powers and the appropriate venue for such a significant constitutional interpretation.

Democratic Appointees to Hear the Case

The Colorado Supreme Court consists entirely of justices appointed by Democrats. This factor is particularly significant given Trump’s status as a prominent Republican figure. Critics and supporters alike are watching closely, with some questioning whether the justices’ political affiliations could influence their interpretation of the law.

Colorado’s Urgent Request for a Final Decision

Colorado officials are under pressure to finalize their 2024 primary ballot by January 5, 2024. This deadline lends urgency to the resolution of Trump’s eligibility. The state’s request for a swift decision demonstrates the tight timeline and the potential impact of the court’s ruling on the upcoming primary elections. Clearly, it is a matter of both legal and electoral significance.

Trump Condemns Lawsuits as Political Maneuvering

Trump criticized the rulings as politically motivated actions designed to interfere with the election process. He specifically targeted Democratic “dark money” groups, accusing them of orchestrating these legal challenges to undermine his candidacy. Trump portrayed the lawsuits as a way for his political opponents to use the legal system for electoral gain.

Potential for Supreme Court Involvement

The possibility of the U.S. Supreme Court intervening in this matter adds another twist to the unfolding legal saga. If the case were to reach the nation’s highest court, it would be a landmark event, as the Supreme Court has never reached a judgment on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Such involvement could also change the constitutional provision’s scope and application.

Constitutional Questions Raised

Many users have debated over Judge Wallace’s decision’s constitutional validity. One commentator said, “Isn’t this against the Constitution? The judge can only deem him guilty of insurrection. Then CONGRESS has to decide if he can run for office again or if he is ineligible to be on the ballot.”

Debating the Insurrection Claim

Others were skeptical about the insurrection allegation. One user said, “Someone missed the memo. The FBI has stated there was no insurrection. The 40 thousand plus hours of video just released backs that up.” This reflects a perspective that relies on the FBI’s assessment and video evidence to question the validity of the insurrection claim.

Judicial Prudence in Political Matters

Some users touched on the cautious approach judges must take in political cases. One user said, “Because every Judge knows you cannot remove someone from the ballot on the words of the left as they claim what the words of Trump’s speech meant. They cannot prove insurrection, and no proof means Trump stays on the ballots.”

Implications for Democracy

Some reactions highlight the consequences for American democracy if Trump is re-elected. An individual said, “It’s like this – If the ex-president who tried to illegally overthrow the government is elected a second time, then we deserve to lose our democracy and our freedoms.” This statement shows the concern of some members of the public.

Concerns Over Fair Legal Process

There are serious concerns about the fairness of the legal process. As one comment puts it, “Imagine, just for a moment, that a judge ruled you guilty of a crime without being able to present evidence in your defense. That is what happened here.” This reflects some people’s anxiety over the fairness of the court case.

The Trial’s Focus and Legal Integrity

Others argued that the trial did not focus on proving insurrection but rather on the technicalities of Colorado law also emerges. A commenter said, “This is a bit disingenuous. The trial was NOT about the insurrection, and no evidence was presented on these matters.” To some, the trial strayed from addressing the core issue of insurrection.