them. they need to re-read the debates of 1866 over the creation of the 14th amendment but i would guess that they would also be looking, if not explicitly, implicitly at the i mean, to me, this colorado decision, it seems to me, is going to depend on whether there are five justices, who will be good technicians to do as luttig says, read it carefully and do what it says. whether they are truly going to be haunted by bush v. gore, which was their steps into determining who wins these elections, and determined somehow to never do this again. only one member of this court was there, and that is clarence thomas. i doubt that he will be haunted by, but i really think that is part of what they will have to look at. today, i just went and read some of the case, and i read
team six to assassinate his political opponents? donald trump s lawyer said no. the president cannot be prosecuted for assassinating his political opponents unless he has already been convicted of the same charge in a senate impeachment trial. the most constitutionally important civil case the donald trump is currently litigating is he s appeal tonight in state supreme court asking to overturn the colorado supreme court s decision to ban donald trump for the presidential ballot. we will consider those cases tonight through the lens of law professor andrew weissmann s legal scholarship as well as the wisdom of three pulitzer prize-winning historians who are experts on the clauses of the constitution. but donald trump is now clinging to, trying to redefine through the appeals process. the cases that are going to
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 made by a vote of two thirds in each house remove such ability. former federal appeals court judge michael luttig, who is appointed to the court by republican president george h. w. bush believes section three could not be any clear. the supreme court does not want to decide this case, and it will likely look for every legitimate way possible, legitimate way possible to avoid deciding whether the former president is disqualified. there are very, very few if any
there is no precedent really. david blight pointed out, bush v. gore is pretty close, but there is no precedent for a presidential candidate being disqualified from office for reasons like this. so, there is no existing definition in the jurisprudence that would directly relate to this case, but remember, in the election of 1876, soon after the 14th amendment, supreme court justices were involved and choosing the president then also, and as a lecture electoral commission was established, including five members of the supreme court, and a disputed presidential election. judges may pretty much very well liked the idea that they can choose the president.
off-ramps that will allow the supreme court to avoid a decision in this case. indeed, i believe that there are none. section three at the 14th amendment simply could not be any clearer, that the former president is disqualified from the presidency. as we continue tonight s combined law school class and history class, we re joined now by david white, professor of american history and african american studies. he won the pulitzer prize in history for his book, frederick douglass, profit of freedom. he s also the author of several other books including race and reunion in the civil war, in america memory. and eric phoner joins us, columbia university history professor, when the pulitzer prize choice for his books, reconstruction, americans unfinished revolution and the fiery trial. and american slavery. thank you both for joining this discussion tonight. professor foner, let me begin with you, this case is going to the supreme court. we all watched the supreme court justices and their c