Trump appeals to the Supreme Court against his exclusion from the Colorado primaries

Donald Trump is the star case of the year at the United States Supreme Court. Although there are already several cases that affect him directly or indirectly, the appeal now presented by the former president will define the electoral future of the United States. Trump has appealed to judges about his exclusion from the electoral ballots in the Colorado primaries, a decision also made in Maine and that could be replicated by other states. There are more than thirty in which his participation is contested. The nine justices at the top of the US judicial system will have to decide whether Trump should be sidelined from the election for having participated in an insurrection.

The presentation of the appeal was considered certain. The former president and now candidate had until this Thursday, January 4, to go to the Supreme Court, which has a conservative supermajority of six judges, three of them appointed by Trump himself during his presidency. The appeal joins another presented by the Colorado Republican Party. It also arrives the day after another filed by Trump before the Maine Superior Court against his exclusion from that state's primaries. In both States, the primaries are held on March 5, known as Super Tuesday, the date on which more than a third of the delegates who will designate the Republican presidential candidate are chosen.

The Colorado Supreme Court decided by four votes to three that Trump should be subject to the section three of the 14th amendmentdeclaring him ineligible for a public office, that of president, and that, therefore, his name should not appear on the primary election ballots for the presidential elections on November 5, 2024.

This provision reads: “No person may be a senator or representative in Congress, nor an elector to elect president and vice president, nor may he hold any civil or military office under the authority of the United States or any State, who, having previously sworn to support the Constitution of 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 an executive or judicial officer thereof has taken part in any insurrection or rebellion against the United States or has given aid or facilities to the enemies from the country”. He adds that this veto may be lifted by Congress through the vote of two-thirds of each Chamber. It is an amendment passed in 1868, three years after the end of the Civil War, that sought to prevent Confederate rebels from occupying positions of power.

The 43-page appeal submitted to the Supreme Court shares the arguments presented before the Maine Superior Court. Appeals to the High Court are formulated as questions and in this case the question is direct: “Was the Colorado Supreme Court wrong in ordering to exclude President Trump from the 2024 presidential elections?”

“In our system of 'government of the people, by the people, [y] for the people', the Colorado ruling is not and cannot be correct. “This Court must grant the motion to consider this extremely important issue, summarily reverse the ruling of the Colorado Supreme Court, and restore to voters the right to vote for the candidate of their choice,” says the writing.

“The question of eligibility to serve as president of the United States is properly reserved for Congress, not the state courts, to consider and decide. By considering the question of President Trump's eligibility and excluding him from the vote, the Colorado Supreme Court arrogated to itself the authority of Congress,” the lawyers argue.

The appeal says the Colorado court was wrong in how it described President Trump's role in the events of January 6, 2021. “It was not an 'insurrection' and President Trump in no way 'engaged' in an 'insurrection'.” , he points out.

Trump's lawyers believe that the 14th amendment prohibits certain people from “holding specific offices, [pero] not that they are presented to them or that they are chosen for them.” They also point out that it cannot be applied to the former president because that position is not expressly cited in the standard. They point out that positions are listed in descending order, from senator to any civil or military position, but without naming the White House tenant.

In addition, it applies to anyone who participated in an insurrection while being an “official of the United States,” a term that, according to their interpretation, does not apply to the president. Curiously, in the New York fraud case, the former president's lawyers said that he should go to federal court because Trump was a “United States official” and the Prosecutor's Office successfully argued the opposite.

Another of Trump's legal team's arguments is that upon assuming office he did not take an “oath to support the Constitution,” but rather the president's oath is to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution.

[Noticia de última hora. Habrá actualización en breve]

Follow all the international information on Facebook and xor in our weekly newsletter.