Why the Trump Ballot Case Is the Ultimate Test of Originalism
Feb 8, 2024
auto_awesome
Notable historian Jill Lepore and other historians explore the Supreme Court case on whether Donald Trump can run for President again. They discuss the interpretation and application of the 14th Amendment's disqualification clause, holding Trump accountable for the January 6th events, the concept of self-executing disqualification, and the potential consequences of a court decision on Trump's eligibility.
The Supreme Court case revolves around the interpretation of the 14th Amendment's disqualification clause and its potential application to Donald Trump.
The Supreme Court justices face a delicate decision, balancing the constitutional argument for disqualification with the potential political implications and the need to uphold the rule of law.
Deep dives
Origins of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, known as the disqualification clause, was proposed after the Civil War to prevent leaders of the former Confederacy from returning to office. It guarantees equal protection and due process of the law for all people, regardless of race. The disqualification clause was intended to secure the safety and security of the new republic and to prevent those who engaged in insurrection from holding office again.
Arguments in the Supreme Court Case
The Supreme Court case revolves around the interpretation of Section 3 and its application to Donald Trump. Trump's legal team presents various arguments to counter the claim that he engaged in insurrection and should be disqualified. These arguments include denying the existence of an insurrection, asserting lack of evidence proving Trump's involvement, claiming that Section 3 does not apply to the president or a presidential candidate, and emphasizing the need for a criminal conviction before disqualification. Additionally, Trump's lawyers argue that removing him from the ballot would disenfranchise Republican voters, although the right to vote is separate from the right to vote for a specific candidate.
The Role of the Supreme Court and Potential Rulings
The Supreme Court justices face a delicate decision in this case. While they may recognize the constitutional basis for disqualifying Trump, they might also consider the potential political and partisan implications. They may seek a narrow interpretation or avoid making a definitive ruling, instead emphasizing Congress's role in addressing the issue. The timing of the case adds complexity, as Trump has already appeared on some primary ballots. Nonetheless, the court must navigate between upholding the constitutional argument and avoiding the fear of further political violence, as capitulating to violence would undermine the rule of law.
This week, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case that has the potential to remove Donald Trump from the ballot in Colorado, and possibly across the country. At issue is the Fourteenth Amendment provision that prohibits the leader of an insurrection from holding office, and whether the clause can be applied to Trump’s role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. The New Yorker staff writer Jill Lepore, along with other notable historians, wrote an amicus brief that contextualizes the law. “This court has made momentous decisions in the last few years, certainly in the last two decades, in the name of an originalist interpretation of the Constitution,” she tells Tyler Foggatt. “And the only originalist interpretation of the Constitution available to them in this case is that Donald Trump cannot run for President of the United States.”