level of specifity of detail is level of conduct is that obvious level of conduct and the level of conduct as to what it should be, and the courtland of the level of power. you said some of which many of which, because it is the ellipse speech of the bl blabl blasingame, and all of those are immune, and with the department of justice and meeting with the department of congress falls within the heartland of article 2 section iii and communing with
that we might actually see another order coming from the supreme court before the arguments that ask specifically for briefing on particular issues. paula, colorado s obviously not the only state where there s a question about former president being on the ballot. how does the supreme court decision on this affect all the other cases? it depends what they say, to joan s point. it s unclear what they re going to weigh in on. the expectation is they re going to provide clarity about section iii of the 14th amendment, the so-called insurrectionist ban. this has been litigated across multiple states with varying outcomes. if they don t offer clarity on that constitutional outcome, you re going to see new lawsuits in illinois and massachusetts because it is the job of the supreme court to, again, interpret and offer clarity to the states and other courts on constitutional questions. so, that s what we expect here. whatever they say would be
requests, what were they talking about behind closed doors? why did it take so long to make this decision? but, elie, for people who have not been paying close attention to this, if they re watching tonight and wondering what this means, can you lay out what s at stake here? sure. in the, sort of, narrower sense, whether donald trump will appear on the ballot in colorado. but it s going to mean so much more than that. this is going to impact whether he can be removed from the ballot or remain on the ballot in many states. and let me, sort of, frame the main legal issues here. the 14th amendment, section iii, says anyone who engages in insurrection is disqualified. and using that, colorado and since then maine, have disqualified him, said he engaged in insurrection. but the legal questions here go to another layer. the first question is, who gets to decide whether a person has engaged in insurrection? there s a reading that trump s argument has reflected that only congress can tell us
asking the court to actually review the determination of the colorado supreme court, affirming the ruling of the district court, that trump did engage in insurrection. now, i suspect the court will not grant sert on that question, that they will probably resolve the question on the issue of whether he s an officer under section iii and whether or not the section is self-executing. if they were to rule against trump on those two legal questions, then they actually would have to reach the question of whether he engaged in insurrection. i suspect that he raised those issues on appeal because he also wants to be contesting those determine neighs. and the colorado republicans didn t contest those. it s remains to be seen whether the court will grant krert on those additional questions and whether they will reach them if they take the case and how they resolve it. elliott, the former president s attorneys are arguing the so-called insurrectionist ban doesn t apply to the presidency and sec
guns in the crowd. people had weapons. correct. he often tries to leave himself some kind of public out. jessica, there s also the matter of the separate appeal filed by the colorado gop. how does that differ from the arguments made by the former president s legal team? that s really interesting. the colorado gop made two of the same arguments trump has made in his brief, including whether he s an officer within meaning of section iii of the 14th amendment. and also whether or not the section iii of the 14th amendment is self-executing or whether congress has to enact legislation that authorizes states to make these determinations or some other way of determining whether or not he s disqualified by section iii. and then they made an additional point about whether their first amendment rights as a party were violated by the action here. but trump goes on to make these additional arguments, including whether or not he engaged in insurrection. the colorado republican party didn t ra