What's next for Donald Trump after disqualification from holding presidency?
The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that Donald Trump is disqualified from holding the presidency under the Constitution's insurrection clause. The court also demanded that the secretary of state exclude the former president's name from the state's Republican presidential primary ballot.
This is the first time a court has found Trump not eligible to return to the White House considering his role in the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack. This is also the first time a presidential candidate is disqualified under the clause, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
After the landmark decision, what lies ahead for Trump?
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
Elie Honig, a CNN legal analyst, has opened up on what happens next after the ruling. "This is a historic decision, a momentous decision, as the Supreme Court itself says they are in uncharted territory but it's really important to keep in mind this is not the last word here. This is almost certainly going up to the US Supreme Court, which can review the decisions of a state Supreme Court," Honig said.
"In fact, the Colorado Supreme Court anticipates that possibility, and for that reason they put their own ruling on hold until January 4," he added. "The practical consequence as it stands at this moment, though, is that Donald Trump will not be on the Colorado ballot in the race for President in 2024."
Honig further said that it is important to keep in mind the broader context, citing how there were dozens of these challenges filed across the country in the past and "18 or so of them have failed, been rejected, or been withdrawn by the plaintiff." He reiterated that the Supreme Court will have the final say.
'That's not a real democracy'
Presidential candidates responded to Trump's disqualification, condemning the Colorado Supreme Court's decision. Robert F. Kennedy Jr wrote, "Trump blocked from the ballot in Colorado. When a court in another country disqualifies an opposition candidate from running, we say, "That's not a real democracy." Now it's happening here."
""I'm not a Trump supporter (if I were, I wouldn't be running against him!) But I want to beat him in a fair election, not because he was kicked off the ballot. Let the voters choose, not the courts!" he added.
Vivek Ramaswamy pledged to withdraw from the Colorado GOP primary ballot until Trump is allowed to return.
"Donald Trump should not be prevented from being President by any court. He should be prevented from being President of the United States by the voters of this country," Chris Christie wrote on X.
"The Colorado Supreme Court's ruling barring Donald Trump from the presidential ballot is what I raised as a concern in the first presidential debate in Milwaukee. The factual finding that he supported insurrection will haunt his candidacy," wrote Asa Hutchinson.
What is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment?
According to constitution.congress.gov, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
This is a provision that applies to people who have taken an oath to support the US Constitution. They are either "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the U.S. or "give aid or comfort to the enemies" of the nation. Under section 3, Congress can "remove such disability" by a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate.
The Congress passed the 14th Amendment in 1866. It was ratified by the states in 1868.
Gerard Magliocca, a law professor at Indiana University who has studied the provision, said of the Donald Trump case, "There's going to be a historical part of it and then there's going to be kind of the practical, 'where is this going to lead us' kind of discussion."
