Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Trump's Eligibility for Office
The Supreme Court conducted oral arguments today in a case regarding the eligibility of former President Donald Trump to hold future federal office. The case centers around Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies individuals who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States from holding public office. Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who attended the proceedings, shared his insights on the court's apparent search for an 'off-ramp' in the case.
Raskin highlighted the conservative majority's inclination to avoid holding Trump accountable for his involvement in the January 6th insurrection. He noted that the arguments presented by Trump's lawyer focused on the legal aspect of disqualifying Trump rather than disputing his participation in the insurrection. The attorney argued that no state could disqualify someone for being an insurrectionist since the disqualification could potentially be removed by a two-thirds majority in Congress.
Raskin pointed out that this argument also opened the door for state legislatures to appoint electors for Trump even if he is not on the ballot. Despite the cleverness of the argument, Raskin expressed his belief that it ultimately fails to hold up. He emphasized that the insurrection itself transcends the level of organization and that the presence of chaos does not negate its nature as an insurrection.
During the oral arguments, Justice Jonathan Mitchell, Trump's attorney, refrained from conceding that the former president participated in an insurrection. However, Raskin dismissed this denial, illustrating that the lack of organization does not diminish the gravity of the act.
In considering the broader implications of the case, Raskin acknowledged the potential balance the court may strike between allowing Trump on the ballot while upholding his eligibility for legal prosecution and rejecting his claim for absolute immunity. Such a judgment, while politically motivated, could address the legal merits of the case. Raskin highlighted the need for the court to evaluate whether disqualifying Trump for insurrection upholds or discredits democracy.
Responding to concerns about deepening divisions in the country, Raskin explained that the framers of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment recognized the threat to democracy posed by individuals who attempt to overthrow the government. Disqualifying a small number of people, as outlined in the Constitution, serves to protect democracy. He stressed that more than 100 million individuals are already disqualified from running for president due to various requirements, including the absence of engagement in insurrection.
The question of enforceability, Raskin contended, should not rely on fear or intimidation. Upholding the Constitution's principles should displace violence and ensure democratic values prevail. Raskin further addressed concerns raised by certain justices about state actions influencing other voters' ability to elect the candidate of their choice. He argued that such disparities are an inherent consequence of the federal system and the varying voting regulations across states.
The Supreme Court's ruling in this case is eagerly anticipated, as it will provide clarity on the legality of disqualifying individuals involved in insurrection from holding federal office. The decision may have significant implications for future elections and political conduct in the United States.
