suggest that. is there any evidence to suggest that the presidency was what they were focused on? there is some evidence of that. there were people saying we don t want jefferson davis to be elected president and there was also one of the drafts of section 3 specifically mentioned the presidency and the vice president. but it wasn t the final enactment. right. it wasn t the final enactment, but it shows there was some concern about some people about confederate insurrectionists ascending to the presidency. we look at the historical evidence and pick the evidence we like and interpret is tan den shally because you can throw this counterveiling evidence back in our face. we wanted to focus on the text of the constitution, this was a compromised provision that was enacted in section 3. let me ask you another question about the states. you have forcefully made an argument about the states not being able to enforce section 3, so if we agree with you on that, what happens
that argument. there is some evidence to suggest that. any evidence to suggest the presidency was what they were focused on? there is some evidence of that. people saying we don t want jefferson davis to be elected president and one of the drafts of section three specifically mentioned the presidency and vice presidency. it wasn t the final inaction. it wasn t final but there was concern by some people about con federal insurrectionists ascendsing to the presidency. we didn t want to make a a history argument. the other side can come back and throw this counter evidence back in our face. we wanted to focus more on the text of the constitution. it was a compromise provision that was enacted in section three. let me ask you another question about the states because you have forcefully made an argument about the states not being able to enforce section three. so if we agree with you on that, what happens next? i thought you also wanted us to end the litigation so is
this is a historic moment for the united states supreme court and for american democracy. the justices about to consider whether donald trump is constitutionally barred from being president again. we ll hear the unprecedented arguments and the court s responses live. welcome to cnn s special live coverage of the trump ballot battle at the u.s. supreme court. i m kaitlan collins live outside the supreme court. and i m jake tapper. the nation s highest court will review this landmark case. the division by colorado s supreme court to disqualify former president trump from the 2024 ballot based on what some call the insurrectionist ban 12349th amendment to the u.s. constitution. today the nine justices, three of them nominated by trump, are poised to have the most direct impact on a presidential election since the supreme court decided bush v. gore nearly a quarter sentry ago. now among the questions before the highest court in the land today, did trump incite an insurrecti
election he lost. and hearing the case, the panel of nine supreme court justices including three that president trump himself appointed to the bench. whatever they decide has the potential to transform the trajectory of this year s election, and trump s bid to retake the white house making it the most consequential election case since bush v. gore a quarter century ago. these oral arguments expected to begin in moments and potentially last several hours, and we will be here with you for all of it. and joining us now, nbc s ken dilanian outside the court along with andrew weissmann, former fbi general counsel and former senior member of the moeller probe. and neal katyal. before we dive into the big question, your thoughts about the gravity of this moment, exploring an issue that this country has never had to confront before. the founders of our 14th amendment in the 1860s put this in as an ironclad guarantee that we wouldn t have insurrectionists leading our governm
reinforce or dismantle the colorado supreme court s order excluding the former president from the ballot in that state. effectively punishing trump for a crime which he has neither been criminally charged for convicted. dana: as soon as it begins we ll listen to it live. until then our fox team coverage continues. we have andy mccarthy, jonathan turley, and kerri and joining us is karl rove and andrew. one of the things i wanted to start with you on, andrew, set the stage about how unprecedented this is and what this moment could actually mean. i think it s very interesting to think about today through the lens of donald trump. the justices are thinking about what this ruling does for decades or even hundreds of years to come. this is a precedent we ve never had before. what happens when states challenge candidates for presidential office? this is not just a donald trump issue. this is every single election that will come from here on out. i don t think that the justices