the appeal that they made? well, anderson, one of the first things that the president s lawyers take on is the idea that he is an insurrectionist, which is something that the colorado supreme court had ruled. they say he is not, that the january 6th attack was not an insurrection, and that the former president did not engage in insurrection. they also say that the congress, not state courts, should be the ones that determine the eligibility for the presidency. they also say that the 14th amendment, the letter, if you read the 14th amendment, section three, it doesn t mention the office of the presidency and it doesn t apply, they say, to the former president. i will read you a little more of what they argue. they say that this colorado ruling, if allowed to stand, will mark the first time in the history of the united states the judiciary has prevented voters from casting ballots for the leading major party presidential candidate. and obviously, that is what is at stake her
whether the court will grant cert on those additional questions and whether they will reach them if they take the case and how they ultimately resolve it. elliot, i mean, you reference this earlier, the former president s attorneys are arguing the insurrectionist ban does not apply to the presidency, and he section three of the 14th amendment does not specifically mention the presidency, which is true, it says officer of the united states. the counter argument is doesn t make any sense the authors would ban insurrectionists from holding virtually every other job in the government, symbol of the military, and not the highest office in the country? it s sort of preposterous as a matter of plain language you and i, talking the president of the united states is not an officer of the united states is ludicrous. however, read the language of the constitution and it is quite clear that they say frankly there is another provision of the constitution that says the president, colma, vice p